102" whip

[summitlt@gmail.com]

Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
with the whip ?

[Professor]

You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
performance if mounted in the proper location... but there are several
major things to consider. The first is location. To have good omni
performance... the whip must be centered on the mass of metal ground
plane. This means the center of the vehicle... in laymans terms... the
roof. That brings us to the second consideration. Do you want an
antenna that tall on you roof. It will be banging everything from trees
to overhangs at the gas station. It is most inconvienient. My personal
choice is the Wilson 1000 magnet for several reasons. It's well made...
has a good strong magnet... and is much better suited/convienient to
roof mounting. I would estimate that its performance is perhaps 80% of
the 102" whip when mounted on that location. Hope that helps.

Professor
www.telstar-electronics.com

[Skipp asks the question]

: Professor > wrote:
: You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
: performance if mounted in the proper location...

What about gain antennas such as the common 1/2 or 5/8 wave?

I would venture to say gain antennas would be much better
performers for the other 99.999% of us.

cheers,
skipp

[tnom@mucks.net]

On 25 Jan 2006 04:48:05 -0800, "Professor"
> wrote:

>You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
>performance if mounted in the proper location...

It depends on what 102" you are talking about. Not all 102"
antennas are created equal. Some 102" antennas can actually
be beat by some shorter antennas.

Let the games begin.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:55:38 +0000 (UTC), Skipp out in left field
> wrote in >:

>: Professor > wrote:
>: You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
>: performance if mounted in the proper location...
>
>What about gain antennas such as the common 1/2 or 5/8 wave?


Assuming this is a mobile install.....

A 1/2w antenna is not a "gain" antenna and requires a high-impedance
feed. A 5/8w also requires some impedance matching at the base, but
its benefits in a mobile installation aren't realized because of the
heavy loading required (a 5/8w at 11m is about 22 feet high!).


>I would venture to say gain antennas would be much better
>performers for the other 99.999% of us.


I wouldn't "venture to say" anything of the sort. I have installed
lots of antennas and tuned them up with a FSM. So far I haven't found
a single antenna that can beat a properly installed (and sometimes
improperly installed) 1/4w (102") whip.









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:36:19 -0500, wrote in
>:

>On 25 Jan 2006 04:48:05 -0800, "Professor"
> wrote:
>
>>You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
>>performance if mounted in the proper location...
>
>It depends on what 102" you are talking about. Not all 102"
>antennas are created equal. Some 102" antennas can actually
>be beat by some shorter antennas.
>
>Let the games begin.


What games? You're right. After the last major discussion on the topic
I did some tests and found out that the 102" stainless whips don't
work as well as the 102" fiberglass whips, the difference apparently
due to the ferrous nature of the conductor. But I have tried both
types on the truck and haven't noticed any -practical- difference.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer > wrote in
<retet1pmcedd6m33kunpolbejflla9iq08@2355323778>:

>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:02:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:55:38 +0000 (UTC), Skipp out in left field
> wrote in >:
>>
>>>: Professor > wrote:
>>>: You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
>>>: performance if mounted in the proper location...
>>>
>>>What about gain antennas such as the common 1/2 or 5/8 wave?
>>
>>
>>Assuming this is a mobile install.....
>>
>>A 1/2w antenna is not a "gain" antenna and requires a high-impedance
>>feed. A 5/8w also requires some impedance matching at the base, but
>>its benefits in a mobile installation aren't realized because of the
>>heavy loading required (a 5/8w at 11m is about 22 feet high!).
>
>Frank;
> A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?


Sure, if it's standing a full 18 feet tall.









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
> On 25 Jan 2006 04:48:05 -0800, "Professor"
> > wrote:
>
>>You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
>>performance if mounted in the proper location...
>
> It depends on what 102" you are talking about. Not all 102"
> antennas are created equal. Some 102" antennas can actually
> be beat by some shorter antennas.
>
> Let the games begin.

Mounted properly the 102" is king.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>> Let the games begin.
>
>Mounted properly the 102" is king.

King of what?

[Big Rich Soprano]

>>Mounted properly the 102" is king.


>King of what?


King of beers?

[james]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer > wrote:

>+<Frank;
>+< A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?
*****

Correct it doesn't

james

[james]

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:21:12 -0600, "DrDeath"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>+<> On 25 Jan 2006 04:48:05 -0800, "Professor"
>+<> > wrote:
>+<>
>+<>>You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
>+<>>performance if mounted in the proper location...
>+<>
>+<> It depends on what 102" you are talking about. Not all 102"
>+<> antennas are created equal. Some 102" antennas can actually
>+<> be beat by some shorter antennas.
>+<>
>+<> Let the games begin.
>+<
>+<Mounted properly the 102" is king.
>+<
*****

I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
better than any loaded antenna.

Now I define performance as a combination of radiated power and VSWR
bandwidth. VSWR bandwidth is as improtant as radiated power as it is
an indicator of antenna radiation resistance and "Q" of the antenna.
Both have effect on the efficiency of the antenna over the disired
operating bandwidth of the antenna.

james

[Steveo]

wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:21:12 -0600, "DrDeath"
> > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >+<> On 25 Jan 2006 04:48:05 -0800, "Professor"
> >+<> > wrote:
> >+<>
> >+<>>You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
> >+<>>performance if mounted in the proper location...
> >+<>
> >+<> It depends on what 102" you are talking about. Not all 102"
> >+<> antennas are created equal. Some 102" antennas can actually
> >+<> be beat by some shorter antennas.
> >+<>
> >+<> Let the games begin.
> >+<
> >+<Mounted properly the 102" is king.
> >+<
> *****
>
> I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
> better than any loaded antenna.
>
> Now I define performance as a combination of radiated power and VSWR
> bandwidth. VSWR bandwidth is as improtant as radiated power as it is
> an indicator of antenna radiation resistance and "Q" of the antenna.
> Both have effect on the efficiency of the antenna over the disired
> operating bandwidth of the antenna.
>
> james
>
The 102" rocks, except for its tree pruning and over-hang scraping
qualities..oh and it's a bit on the odious side appearance wise. I have
that mount and a Wilson 1000 on one of my trucks, I rarely put the 102" on
because of the noise it makes banging off of things, and it's somewhat
directional mounted on the step bumper. (good dx shooter)

The Wilson 1000 mag mount is hard to beat for most practical applications.

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
>
>>> Let the games begin.
>>
>>Mounted properly the 102" is king.
>
> King of what?
>

Of mobile antennas of course. Unless your participating in a keydown and
need some oil cooled coil, you will get the best results with a 102" and
they are good (most of them) to 1kw.

[DrDeath]

"Big Rich Soprano" > wrote in message
...
>>>Mounted properly the 102" is king.
>
>
>>King of what?
>
>
> King of beers?

That would be Budweiser!

[DrDeath]

"Steveo" > wrote in message
Snipped

> The 102" rocks, except for its tree pruning and over-hang scraping
> qualities..oh and it's a bit on the odious side appearance wise. I have
> that mount and a Wilson 1000 on one of my trucks, I rarely put the 102" on
> because of the noise it makes banging off of things, and it's somewhat
> directional mounted on the step bumper. (good dx shooter)
>
> The Wilson 1000 mag mount is hard to beat for most practical applications.

I have mine mounted in the center of my truck box, puts it pretty close to
center. I have to tie down for the drive through.

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:10:41 -0600, "DrDeath"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>>
>>>> Let the games begin.
>>>
>>>Mounted properly the 102" is king.
>>
>> King of what?
>>
>
>Of mobile antennas of course. Unless your participating in a keydown and
>need some oil cooled coil, you will get the best results with a 102" and
>they are good (most of them) to 1kw.
>
You will get good results but not necessarily the best results.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
>better than any loaded antenna.

In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:10:41 -0600, "DrDeath"
> > wrote:
>
> wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>> Let the games begin.
>>>>
>>>>Mounted properly the 102" is king.
>>>
>>> King of what?
>>>
>>
>>Of mobile antennas of course. Unless your participating in a keydown and
>>need some oil cooled coil, you will get the best results with a 102" and
>>they are good (most of them) to 1kw.
>>
> You will get good results but not necessarily the best results.

How so? Give me an example. Unless Jay wants to put an I10K on his truck.
Out in the desert he could weld 20 foot of tower in the bed. LOL

[tnom@mucks.net]

O
>>>Of mobile antennas of course. Unless your participating in a keydown and
>>>need some oil cooled coil, you will get the best results with a 102" and
>>>they are good (most of them) to 1kw.
>>>
>> You will get good results but not necessarily the best results.
>
>How so? Give me an example. Unless Jay wants to put an I10K on his truck.
>Out in the desert he could weld 20 foot of tower in the bed. LOL
>
Power handling aside the 102" stainless steel whip is a good antenna
but can be marginally beat by other shorter antennas. These shorter
antennas tend to consist of large diameter antenna stock made of brass
or copper usually with a chrome plating. They also are center loaded
with a large diameter air gapped coil.. One such antenna, and I'm sure
there are others, is the X-terminator at about five foot tall.

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
> O
>>>>Of mobile antennas of course. Unless your participating in a keydown and
>>>>need some oil cooled coil, you will get the best results with a 102" and
>>>>they are good (most of them) to 1kw.
>>>>
>>> You will get good results but not necessarily the best results.
>>
>>How so? Give me an example. Unless Jay wants to put an I10K on his truck.
>>Out in the desert he could weld 20 foot of tower in the bed. LOL
>>
> Power handling aside the 102" stainless steel whip is a good antenna
> but can be marginally beat by other shorter antennas. These shorter
> antennas tend to consist of large diameter antenna stock made of brass
> or copper usually with a chrome plating. They also are center loaded
> with a large diameter air gapped coil.. One such antenna, and I'm sure
> there are others, is the X-terminator at about five foot tall.

I've never used that brand before, but have used many other base and center
loaded units. You certainly can't count on manufactures claims of their
products performance. I'll put my 102" up against any I have used in the
past any day of the week. Nobody in my town can out talk me on the mobile.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:18:22 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
>>better than any loaded antenna.
>
>In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
>be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.


Wrong. By it's very nature, a loaded antenna loses some power in the
loading coil and therefore is not as efficient as an antenna without
one. The only way a shorter antenna could outperform a full-length
1/4-wave whip is if it had some way to pull down the take-off angle.
So far, nobody has provided any theory or empirical evidence that any
such antenna exists, or is even possible.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[james]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:47:05 GMT, Lancer > wrote:

>+<On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 16:13:39 GMT, james > wrote:
>+<
>+<>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 21:21:12 -0600, "DrDeath"
> wrote:
>+<>
> wrote in message
...
>+<>>+<> On 25 Jan 2006 04:48:05 -0800, "Professor"
>+<>>+<> > wrote:
>+<>>+<>
>+<>>+<>>You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
>+<>>+<>>performance if mounted in the proper location...
>+<>>+<>
>+<>>+<> It depends on what 102" you are talking about. Not all 102"
>+<>>+<> antennas are created equal. Some 102" antennas can actually
>+<>>+<> be beat by some shorter antennas.
>+<>>+<>
>+<>>+<> Let the games begin.
>+<>>+<
>+<>>+<Mounted properly the 102" is king.
>+<>>+<
>+<>*****
>+<>
>+<>I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
>+<>better than any loaded antenna.
>+<>
>+<>Now I define performance as a combination of radiated power and VSWR
>+<>bandwidth. VSWR bandwidth is as improtant as radiated power as it is
>+<>an indicator of antenna radiation resistance and "Q" of the antenna.
>+<>Both have effect on the efficiency of the antenna over the disired
>+<>operating bandwidth of the antenna.
>+<>
>+<>james
>+<
>+<"Should" perform better is fine, "will" perform better is not always
>+<the case..
*****

Yes even the best antenna, installed poorly will be o ut performed by
a lesser antenna that is properly installed. Installation on a vehicle
is far more influenced by where it is located and the vehicle itself.
SO for vehicular installations it is not very wise and prudent to make
claims as to which antenna is the best. Given all other obsticles
equal, the 1/4 lambda antenna will out performe physically shorter
antennae. Then not all vehicles are equal, then comparison becomes
more a gentleman's gambit.

james

[tnom@mucks.net]

>> Power handling aside the 102" stainless steel whip is a good antenna
>> but can be marginally beat by other shorter antennas. These shorter
>> antennas tend to consist of large diameter antenna stock made of brass
>> or copper usually with a chrome plating. They also are center loaded
>> with a large diameter air gapped coil.. One such antenna, and I'm sure
>> there are others, is the X-terminator at about five foot tall.
>
>I've never used that brand before, but have used many other base and center
>loaded units. You certainly can't count on manufactures claims of their
>products performance. I'll put my 102" up against any I have used in the
>past any day of the week. Nobody in my town can out talk me on the mobile.
>

You made two statements that need to be examined

1. Never trust manufacturers claims (or individuals)

2. You put your 102" up against others.

The only problem is that you never have put your 102" ss up against
the antenna I am speaking of, and we should never trust the claim of
others. You and me included.

So how do YOU find the truth? You must make a side by side comparison
as I have. Any claims based on anything less than that is just a waste
of discussion.

[james]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:44:19 GMT, Lancer > wrote:

>+<On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:20:36 GMT, james > wrote:
>+<
>+<>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer > wrote:
>+<>
>+<>>+<Frank;
>+<>>+< A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?
>+<>*****
>+<>
>+<>Correct it doesn't
>+<>
>+<>james
>+<Really, a 1/2 wave vertical has no gain over a 1/4 wave vertical?
>+<
>+<Go back to school... you missed something..
******

missed nothing. Just wanted to see your reaction.

I am pleased with your reaction. Thanks

james

[james]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:18:22 -0500, wrote:

>+<
>+<>I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
>+<>better than any loaded antenna.
>+<
>+<In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
>+<be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.
****

I agree with Frank.

So far any physcally short antenna that I have modeled or experimented
with has been found to operate in a manner that is poorer than that of
the 1/4 lambda antenna. The physically shorten antennae that I have
seen that does not lack in efficiency is the tuned small transmitting
loop. This antenna is less than 1/4 lambda in circumference and
actually when tuned will be around 98% efficient. It has very low "Q"
and an extremely small VSWR bandwidth. All other physically short
antenna, less then 1/4 lambda, all have poorer efficiency and lower
VSWR bandwidth as compared to a properly installed 1/4 lambda.

james

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:31:41 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:18:22 -0500, wrote in
>:
>
>>
>>>I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
>>>better than any loaded antenna.
>>
>>In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
>>be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.
>
>
>Wrong. By it's very nature, a loaded antenna loses some power in the
>loading coil and therefore is not as efficient as an antenna without
>one. The only way a shorter antenna could outperform a full-length
>1/4-wave whip is if it had some way to pull down the take-off angle.
>So far, nobody has provided any theory or empirical evidence that any
>such antenna exists, or is even possible.

I agree with everything that you said except the wrong sentence.

A ideal 1/4 wave length antenna can never be beat by a shorter
one. In other words a efficiently designed loaded antenna like the
X-Terminator can not beat the ideal 1/4 antenna.

Yet the X-terminator can beat a radio shack 102" SS whip.It's not that
the X-Terminator is so good. It's that the 102" SS whip is just bad
enough that the X-Terminator can beat it. In other words the radio
shack 102" SS whip is not ideal.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:35:16 GMT, james > wrote
in >:

>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:44:19 GMT, Lancer > wrote:
>
>>+<On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:20:36 GMT, james > wrote:
>>+<
>>+<>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer > wrote:
>>+<>
>>+<>>+<Frank;
>>+<>>+< A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?
>>+<>*****
>>+<>
>>+<>Correct it doesn't
>>+<>
>>+<>james
>>+<Really, a 1/2 wave vertical has no gain over a 1/4 wave vertical?
>>+<
>>+<Go back to school... you missed something..
>******
>
>missed nothing. Just wanted to see your reaction.
>
>I am pleased with your reaction. Thanks
>
>james


=<plonk>=








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:35:07 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>> Power handling aside the 102" stainless steel whip is a good antenna
>>> but can be marginally beat by other shorter antennas. These shorter
>>> antennas tend to consist of large diameter antenna stock made of brass
>>> or copper usually with a chrome plating. They also are center loaded
>>> with a large diameter air gapped coil.. One such antenna, and I'm sure
>>> there are others, is the X-terminator at about five foot tall.
>>
>>I've never used that brand before, but have used many other base and center
>>loaded units. You certainly can't count on manufactures claims of their
>>products performance. I'll put my 102" up against any I have used in the
>>past any day of the week. Nobody in my town can out talk me on the mobile.
>>
>
>You made two statements that need to be examined
>
>1. Never trust manufacturers claims (or individuals)
>
>2. You put your 102" up against others.
>
>The only problem is that you never have put your 102" ss up against
> the antenna I am speaking of, and we should never trust the claim of
>others. You and me included.
>
>So how do YOU find the truth? You must make a side by side comparison
>as I have. Any claims based on anything less than that is just a waste
>of discussion.


By your own words, "we should never trust the claim of others".
Therefore, we shouldn't trust your claim to have made a "side by side
comparison" with this mystery antenna. Ok, we won't.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>So how do YOU find the truth? You must make a side by side comparison
>>as I have. Any claims based on anything less than that is just a waste
>>of discussion.
>
>
>By your own words, "we should never trust the claim of others".
>Therefore, we shouldn't trust your claim to have made a "side by side
>comparison" with this mystery antenna. Ok, we won't.

I said you don't have to believe me, but it is easier to believe
someone who has actually stated that he has made the comparisons
and has posted the details.

What you really should do is make the comparison yourself. We would
never believe you, but at least you'd know the truth.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:47:12 -0500, wrote in
>:

>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:31:41 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:18:22 -0500, wrote in
>:
>>
>>>
>>>>I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
>>>>better than any loaded antenna.
>>>
>>>In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
>>>be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.
>>
>>
>>Wrong. By it's very nature, a loaded antenna loses some power in the
>>loading coil and therefore is not as efficient as an antenna without
>>one. The only way a shorter antenna could outperform a full-length
>>1/4-wave whip is if it had some way to pull down the take-off angle.
>>So far, nobody has provided any theory or empirical evidence that any
>>such antenna exists, or is even possible.
>
>I agree with everything that you said except the wrong sentence.
>
>A ideal 1/4 wave length antenna can never be beat by a shorter
> one. In other words a efficiently designed loaded antenna like the
>X-Terminator can not beat the ideal 1/4 antenna.
>
>Yet the X-terminator can beat a radio shack 102" SS whip.It's not that
>the X-Terminator is so good. It's that the 102" SS whip is just bad
>enough that the X-Terminator can beat it. In other words the radio
>shack 102" SS whip is not ideal.


We've been through this before, tnom -- chrome-plated anything isn't
much better than stainless steel, and any difference isn't going to
make a lick of difference when length and loading are much more
significant. Even if the whip is sold by Radio Shaft. After all, the
design isn't very complicated.....








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>We've been through this before, tnom -- chrome-plated anything isn't
>much better than stainless steel, and any difference isn't going to
>make a lick of difference when length and loading are much more
>significant. Even if the whip is sold by Radio Shaft. After all, the
>design isn't very complicated.....

Yes, we have been through this before, and I never made a definitive
conclusion as to why I got the results I got.

Yes, we have been through this before and no one has ever done the
side by side comparison that would duplicate my results.

Yes, we have been through this before and will again because no one
will admit that the only way to find the truth is by a side by side
comparison.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:13:49 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>So how do YOU find the truth? You must make a side by side comparison
>>>as I have. Any claims based on anything less than that is just a waste
>>>of discussion.
>>
>>
>>By your own words, "we should never trust the claim of others".
>>Therefore, we shouldn't trust your claim to have made a "side by side
>>comparison" with this mystery antenna. Ok, we won't.
>
>I said you don't have to believe me, but it is easier to believe
>someone who has actually stated that he has made the comparisons
>and has posted the details.


......clickity-clickity-clickity..... (the sound of backpedalling)


>What you really should do is make the comparison yourself. We would
>never believe you, but at least you'd know the truth.


That would be the ideal scenario. However, it requires that I purchase
one of these antennas that you are selling, and I don't care to risk
my money on an antenna that purportedly defies the laws of physics
with only marginal benefits, especially when my 102" whip does the job
quite nicely and for a fraction of the cost. But you go right ahead
and preach your version of "the truth" and I'll keep preaching common
sense, ok?









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>I said you don't have to believe me, but it is easier to believe
>>someone who has actually stated that he has made the comparisons
>>and has posted the details.
>
>
>.....clickity-clickity-clickity..... (the sound of backpedalling)

I have always been up front and consistent with the specifics of this
discussion. If you think I'm back pedaling it is most likely caused by
your less than stellar reading comprehension.

>>What you really should do is make the comparison yourself. We would
>>never believe you, but at least you'd know the truth.
>
>
>That would be the ideal scenario. However, it requires that I purchase
>one of these antennas that you are selling, and I don't care to risk
>my money on an antenna that purportedly defies the laws of physics
>with only marginal benefits, especially when my 102" whip does the job
>quite nicely and for a fraction of the cost. But you go right ahead
>and preach your version of "the truth" and I'll keep preaching common
>sense, ok?

Well, I once believed just as you do until I did take the time and
spent the money to check things out myself. Tell me, who went farther
to seek the truth?

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:24:36 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>We've been through this before, tnom -- chrome-plated anything isn't
>>much better than stainless steel, and any difference isn't going to
>>make a lick of difference when length and loading are much more
>>significant. Even if the whip is sold by Radio Shaft. After all, the
>>design isn't very complicated.....
>
>Yes, we have been through this before, and I never made a definitive
>conclusion as to why I got the results I got.


Well, aren't you persistently making the claim that this antenna
you're selling is better than a 102" whip? I would call -that- a
definitive conclusion, wouldn't you?


>Yes, we have been through this before and no one has ever done the
>side by side comparison that would duplicate my results.


Ever think it's because bogus results can't be duplicated?


>Yes, we have been through this before and will again because no one
>will admit that the only way to find the truth is by a side by side
>comparison.


I agree 100%. But once again, since nobody should take anyone else's
word on the subject, it requires a person to buy -both- antennas. Good
way to sell antennas to morons; bad way to sell antennas to people
with more than half a brain.

Now if you are willing to refund the purchase price and shipping if
your antenna doesn't meet or exceed the performance of a 102" whip, be
it SS or glass, then send me an order form. Otherwise, your sales
pitch is lame.









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:31:34 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>I said you don't have to believe me, but it is easier to believe
>>>someone who has actually stated that he has made the comparisons
>>>and has posted the details.
>>
>>
>>.....clickity-clickity-clickity..... (the sound of backpedalling)
>
>I have always been up front and consistent with the specifics of this
>discussion. If you think I'm back pedaling it is most likely caused by
>your less than stellar reading comprehension.


Once again, you said "we should never trust the claim of others". But
after that backfired in your face you qualified it with, "but it is
easier to believe....." Correct me if I'm wrong here, but "never"
doesn't include "easier", does it?


>>>What you really should do is make the comparison yourself. We would
>>>never believe you, but at least you'd know the truth.
>>
>>
>>That would be the ideal scenario. However, it requires that I purchase
>>one of these antennas that you are selling, and I don't care to risk
>>my money on an antenna that purportedly defies the laws of physics
>>with only marginal benefits, especially when my 102" whip does the job
>>quite nicely and for a fraction of the cost. But you go right ahead
>>and preach your version of "the truth" and I'll keep preaching common
>>sense, ok?
>
>Well, I once believed just as you do until I did take the time and
>spent the money to check things out myself. Tell me, who went farther
>to seek the truth?


Yet you can't account for the results. Looks like you didn't go far
enough.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>>We've been through this before, tnom -- chrome-plated anything isn't
>>>much better than stainless steel, and any difference isn't going to
>>>make a lick of difference when length and loading are much more
>>>significant. Even if the whip is sold by Radio Shaft. After all, the
>>>design isn't very complicated.....
>>
>>Yes, we have been through this before, and I never made a definitive
>>conclusion as to why I got the results I got.
>
>
>Well, aren't you persistently making the claim that this antenna
>you're selling is better than a 102" whip? I would call -that- a
>definitive conclusion, wouldn't you?

Reading comprehension mistake on your part. Hint - the use of the word
"why"

False conclusion on your part. Hint - You believe I sell antennas.

>>Yes, we have been through this before and no one has ever done the
>>side by side comparison that would duplicate my results.
>
>
>Ever think it's because bogus results can't be duplicated?

You would never know unless you'd try. Have you ever tried???

>>Yes, we have been through this before and will again because no one
>>will admit that the only way to find the truth is by a side by side
>>comparison.
>
>
>I agree 100%. But once again, since nobody should take anyone else's
>word on the subject, it requires a person to buy -both- antennas. Good
>way to sell antennas to morons; bad way to sell antennas to people
>with more than half a brain.
>
>Now if you are willing to refund the purchase price and shipping if
>your antenna doesn't meet or exceed the performance of a 102" whip, be
>it SS or glass, then send me an order form. Otherwise, your sales
>pitch is lame.


If you agree that a side by side comparison is best then why not
do it. I'll tell you the answer............ You'd rather argue with un
provable hypothesis than seek the real truth by your own
test.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>I have always been up front and consistent with the specifics of this
>>discussion. If you think I'm back pedaling it is most likely caused by
>>your less than stellar reading comprehension.
>
>
>Once again, you said "we should never trust the claim of others". But
>after that backfired in your face you qualified it with, "but it is
>easier to believe....." Correct me if I'm wrong here, but "never"
>doesn't include "easier", does it?

Again your reading comprehension is flawed. The other poster said
never. I said "you don't have to believe me"

>>>>What you really should do is make the comparison yourself. We would
>>>>never believe you, but at least you'd know the truth.
>>>
>>>
>>>That would be the ideal scenario. However, it requires that I purchase
>>>one of these antennas that you are selling, and I don't care to risk
>>>my money on an antenna that purportedly defies the laws of physics
>>>with only marginal benefits, especially when my 102" whip does the job
>>>quite nicely and for a fraction of the cost. But you go right ahead
>>>and preach your version of "the truth" and I'll keep preaching common
>>>sense, ok?
>>
>>Well, I once believed just as you do until I did take the time and
>>spent the money to check things out myself. Tell me, who went farther
>>to seek the truth?
>
>
>Yet you can't account for the results. Looks like you didn't go far
>enough.

I've suggested reasons for the results, but admitted that I don't have
a definitive conclusion as to WHY the results were as is,nor do I have
to in order to post the results.

[tnom@mucks.net]

WOW! 40 something posts on this thread without swearing.

40 something posts without name calling.

40 something posts without perverse comments

[Steveo]

"DrDeath" > wrote:
> "Big Rich Soprano" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>Mounted properly the 102" is king.
> >
> >
> >>King of what?
> >
> >
> > King of beers?
>
> That would be Budweiser!
>
Hiccup, nope that's rolling rock!

[Steveo]

"DrDeath" > wrote:
> "Steveo" > wrote in message
> Snipped
>
> > The 102" rocks, except for its tree pruning and over-hang scraping
> > qualities..oh and it's a bit on the odious side appearance wise. I have
> > that mount and a Wilson 1000 on one of my trucks, I rarely put the 102"
> > on because of the noise it makes banging off of things, and it's
> > somewhat directional mounted on the step bumper. (good dx shooter)
> >
> > The Wilson 1000 mag mount is hard to beat for most practical
> > applications.
>
> I have mine mounted in the center of my truck box, puts it pretty close
> to center. I have to tie down for the drive through.
>
The 102?

[Steveo]

wrote:
> >I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
> >better than any loaded antenna.
>
> In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
> be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.
<
Not if the truck can turn.

[Steveo]

"DrDeath" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:10:41 -0600, "DrDeath"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>>>> Let the games begin.
> >>>>
> >>>>Mounted properly the 102" is king.
> >>>
> >>> King of what?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Of mobile antennas of course. Unless your participating in a keydown
> >>and need some oil cooled coil, you will get the best results with a
> >>102" and they are good (most of them) to 1kw.
> >>
> > You will get good results but not necessarily the best results.
>
> How so? Give me an example. Unless Jay wants to put an I10K on his truck.
> Out in the desert he could weld 20 foot of tower in the bed. LOL
>
F that, Jay's gonna make a pdl2 clone before he dick's with those portable
antennas..we already have that 10K stuff swinging in the breeze.

Right, J? hehehe

[Steveo]

Frank Gilliland > wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:18:22 -0500, wrote in
> >:
>
> >
> >>I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
> >>better than any loaded antenna.
> >
> >In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
> >be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.
>
> Wrong. By it's very nature, a loaded antenna loses some power in the
> loading coil and therefore is not as efficient as an antenna without
> one. The only way a shorter antenna could outperform a full-length
> 1/4-wave whip is if it had some way to pull down the take-off angle.
> So far, nobody has provided any theory or empirical evidence that any
> such antenna exists, or is even possible.
>
The 102 is the best portable antenna you can buy, bottom line. (cheap too)

It takes a real CBer to drive around with one every day tho.

[jim]

wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:31:41 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:18:22 -0500, wrote in
>:
>>
>>
>>>>I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
>>>>better than any loaded antenna.
>>>
>>>In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
>>>be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.
>>
>>
>>Wrong. By it's very nature, a loaded antenna loses some power in the
>>loading coil and therefore is not as efficient as an antenna without
>>one. The only way a shorter antenna could outperform a full-length
>>1/4-wave whip is if it had some way to pull down the take-off angle.
>>So far, nobody has provided any theory or empirical evidence that any
>>such antenna exists, or is even possible.
>
>
> I agree with everything that you said except the wrong sentence.
>
> A ideal 1/4 wave length antenna can never be beat by a shorter
> one. In other words a efficiently designed loaded antenna like the
> X-Terminator can not beat the ideal 1/4 antenna.
>
> Yet the X-terminator can beat a radio shack 102" SS whip.It's not that
> the X-Terminator is so good. It's that the 102" SS whip is just bad
> enough that the X-Terminator can beat it. In other words the radio
> shack 102" SS whip is not ideal.
Do you have any hard test results to back up that claim? Has the
X-terminator been used on a side by side basis with a 102" whip on say
the Lockheed Martin ant test range or is it personal testing you have
conducted? Is it just the Rat Shack whip you are comparing it to or
other maunfacturers (like their is a helluva lot of them)?

[Steveo]

Steveo > wrote:
>> F that, Jay's gonna make a pdl2 clone before he dick's with those
> portable antennas..we already have that 10K stuff swinging in the breeze.
>
> Right, J? hehehe
>
Hey Frank G, you're sharp enough to make a clone of that pdl II, improved
model! (the initial alum cost might be killer) :)

[tnom@mucks.net]

>> Yet the X-terminator can beat a radio shack 102" SS whip.It's not that
>> the X-Terminator is so good. It's that the 102" SS whip is just bad
>> enough that the X-Terminator can beat it. In other words the radio
>> shack 102" SS whip is not ideal.
>Do you have any hard test results to back up that claim? Has the
>X-terminator been used on a side by side basis with a 102" whip on say
>the Lockheed Martin ant test range or is it personal testing you have
>conducted? Is it just the Rat Shack whip you are comparing it to or
>other maunfacturers (like their is a helluva lot of them)?

You don't need a antenna test range to determine relative gains.
I can only confirm the antennas I have tested. The R-S 102"ss
and the Workman X-Terminator are two of them.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:49:29 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>>We've been through this before, tnom -- chrome-plated anything isn't
>>>>much better than stainless steel, and any difference isn't going to
>>>>make a lick of difference when length and loading are much more
>>>>significant. Even if the whip is sold by Radio Shaft. After all, the
>>>>design isn't very complicated.....
>>>
>>>Yes, we have been through this before, and I never made a definitive
>>>conclusion as to why I got the results I got.
>>
>>
>>Well, aren't you persistently making the claim that this antenna
>>you're selling is better than a 102" whip? I would call -that- a
>>definitive conclusion, wouldn't you?
>
>Reading comprehension mistake on your part. Hint - the use of the word
>"why"
>
>False conclusion on your part. Hint - You believe I sell antennas.
>
>>>Yes, we have been through this before and no one has ever done the
>>>side by side comparison that would duplicate my results.
>>
>>
>>Ever think it's because bogus results can't be duplicated?
>
>You would never know unless you'd try. Have you ever tried???
>
>>>Yes, we have been through this before and will again because no one
>>>will admit that the only way to find the truth is by a side by side
>>>comparison.
>>
>>
>>I agree 100%. But once again, since nobody should take anyone else's
>>word on the subject, it requires a person to buy -both- antennas. Good
>>way to sell antennas to morons; bad way to sell antennas to people
>>with more than half a brain.
>>
>>Now if you are willing to refund the purchase price and shipping if
>>your antenna doesn't meet or exceed the performance of a 102" whip, be
>>it SS or glass, then send me an order form. Otherwise, your sales
>>pitch is lame.
>
>
>If you agree that a side by side comparison is best then why not
>do it. I'll tell you the answer............ You'd rather argue with un
>provable hypothesis than seek the real truth by your own
>test.


Send me an antenna and I'll do the test. Well?






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>Send me an antenna and I'll do the test. Well?

Are you on welfare? I owe you nothing.

[jim]

wrote:

>>>Yet the X-terminator can beat a radio shack 102" SS whip.It's not that
>>>the X-Terminator is so good. It's that the 102" SS whip is just bad
>>>enough that the X-Terminator can beat it. In other words the radio
>>>shack 102" SS whip is not ideal.
>>
>>Do you have any hard test results to back up that claim? Has the
>>X-terminator been used on a side by side basis with a 102" whip on say
>>the Lockheed Martin ant test range or is it personal testing you have
>>conducted? Is it just the Rat Shack whip you are comparing it to or
>>other maunfacturers (like their is a helluva lot of them)?
>
>
> You don't need a antenna test range to determine relative gains.
> I can only confirm the antennas I have tested. The R-S 102"ss
> and the Workman X-Terminator are two of them.
Maybe so but what would convince an operator who has never used either
to pick your choice of an ant over the other? Just because you said so?
Nothing you have posted has proven the relative worth of an X-terminator
being a better ant than any 102" whip. General consesus on this board
claims the 102" whip is superior to anything else. Not saying you are an
agent for the X-terminator but where are the hard facts?

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:59:37 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>I have always been up front and consistent with the specifics of this
>>>discussion. If you think I'm back pedaling it is most likely caused by
>>>your less than stellar reading comprehension.
>>
>>
>>Once again, you said "we should never trust the claim of others". But
>>after that backfired in your face you qualified it with, "but it is
>>easier to believe....." Correct me if I'm wrong here, but "never"
>>doesn't include "easier", does it?
>
>Again your reading comprehension is flawed. The other poster said
>never. I said "you don't have to believe me"


My reading comprehension is just fine:

======
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:35:07 -0500, wrote in
>:

<snip>
>The only problem is that you never have put your 102" ss up against
> the antenna I am speaking of, and we should never trust the claim of
>others. You and me included.
>
======

It still astounds me that people such as you think the rest of us are
so dumb as to fall for your lame-brained fallacies. Well, we aren't.


>>>>>What you really should do is make the comparison yourself. We would
>>>>>never believe you, but at least you'd know the truth.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>That would be the ideal scenario. However, it requires that I purchase
>>>>one of these antennas that you are selling, and I don't care to risk
>>>>my money on an antenna that purportedly defies the laws of physics
>>>>with only marginal benefits, especially when my 102" whip does the job
>>>>quite nicely and for a fraction of the cost. But you go right ahead
>>>>and preach your version of "the truth" and I'll keep preaching common
>>>>sense, ok?
>>>
>>>Well, I once believed just as you do until I did take the time and
>>>spent the money to check things out myself. Tell me, who went farther
>>>to seek the truth?
>>
>>
>>Yet you can't account for the results. Looks like you didn't go far
>>enough.
>
>I've suggested reasons for the results, but admitted that I don't have
>a definitive conclusion as to WHY the results were as is,nor do I have
>to in order to post the results.


What's the difference between that and peddling snake-oil?








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>> You don't need a antenna test range to determine relative gains.
>> I can only confirm the antennas I have tested. The R-S 102"ss
>> and the Workman X-Terminator are two of them.

>Maybe so but what would convince an operator who has never used either
>to pick your choice of an ant over the other? Just because you said so?

No. I said you don't have to believe me. The best I can do is to hope
that someone's interest has been sparked enough so that they would
do the side by side test them self. No one has bothered, so no one can
do any better than hypothesize.

>Nothing you have posted has proven the relative worth of an X-terminator
>being a better ant than any 102" whip. General consesus on this board
>claims the 102" whip is superior to anything else. Not saying you are an
>agent for the X-terminator but where are the hard facts?

True, the general consensus is that I am wrong. Years ago the general
consensus was that the world was flat.

[Steveo]

Frank Gilliland > wrote:
>> We've been through this before, tnom -- chrome-plated anything isn't
> much better than stainless steel -snip-
>
Eh, one is plated and the other is solid. I like stainless for longevity.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:13:36 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>Send me an antenna and I'll do the test. Well?
>
>Are you on welfare? I owe you nothing.


I have no intention of keeping it -- I wouldn't -dare- drive around
town with that gawd-awful contraption on my truck. Rest assured I'll
send it back. So whaddya say?






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Steveo]

wrote:
>> If you agree that a side by side comparison is best then why not
> do it. I'll tell you the answer............ You'd rather argue with un
> provable hypothesis than seek the real truth by your own
> test.
>
Didn't you say something about 'let the flames begin' (paraphrasing) when
you first replied to this topic, Tnom, see what you started? lol

[tnom@mucks.net]

><snip>
>>The only problem is that you never have put your 102" ss up against
>> the antenna I am speaking of, and we should never trust the claim of
>>others. You and me included.
>>
>======
>
>It still astounds me that people such as you think the rest of us are
>so dumb as to fall for your lame-brained fallacies. Well, we aren't.

I stand corrected. You should never say never.


>>I've suggested reasons for the results, but admitted that I don't have
>>a definitive conclusion as to WHY the results were as is,nor do I have
>>to in order to post the results.
>
>
>What's the difference between that and peddling snake-oil?

Because I admit that I am not sure of the reasons for the result but I
am sure of the result. I am not peddling anything other than the
truth. You don't have to buy it.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:28:29 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>> You don't need a antenna test range to determine relative gains.
>>> I can only confirm the antennas I have tested. The R-S 102"ss
>>> and the Workman X-Terminator are two of them.
>
>>Maybe so but what would convince an operator who has never used either
>>to pick your choice of an ant over the other? Just because you said so?
>
>No. I said you don't have to believe me. The best I can do is to hope
>that someone's interest has been sparked enough so that they would
>do the side by side test them self. No one has bothered, so no one can
>do any better than hypothesize.


======
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:35:07 -0500, wrote in
>:

<snip>
>The only problem is that you never have put your 102" ss up against
> the antenna I am speaking of, and we should never trust the claim of
>others. You and me included.
>
======


>>Nothing you have posted has proven the relative worth of an X-terminator
>>being a better ant than any 102" whip. General consesus on this board
>>claims the 102" whip is superior to anything else. Not saying you are an
>>agent for the X-terminator but where are the hard facts?
>
>True, the general consensus is that I am wrong. Years ago the general
>consensus was that the world was flat.


http://www.miraclesart.com/







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>>Send me an antenna and I'll do the test. Well?
>>
>>Are you on welfare? I owe you nothing.
>
>
>I have no intention of keeping it -- I wouldn't -dare- drive around
>town with that gawd-awful contraption on my truck. Rest assured I'll
>send it back. So whaddya say?

You have proven through the years to be less than honorable, so no,
I will make no attempt to loan you anything.

[tnom@mucks.net]

On 28 Jan 2006 02:33:52 GMT, Steveo > wrote:

wrote:
>>> If you agree that a side by side comparison is best then why not
>> do it. I'll tell you the answer............ You'd rather argue with un
>> provable hypothesis than seek the real truth by your own
>> test.
>>
>Didn't you say something about 'let the flames begin' (paraphrasing) when
>you first replied to this topic, Tnom, see what you started? lol

I said let the games begin

The discussion so far has been on subject, direct, controversial but
healthy. Much better than the normal topics out here.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:37:42 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>>Send me an antenna and I'll do the test. Well?
>>>
>>>Are you on welfare? I owe you nothing.
>>
>>
>>I have no intention of keeping it -- I wouldn't -dare- drive around
>>town with that gawd-awful contraption on my truck. Rest assured I'll
>>send it back. So whaddya say?
>
>You have proven through the years to be less than honorable, so no,
>I will make no attempt to loan you anything.


How about I send you a deposit for the cost of the antenna, then when
I return it you send the deposit back? Any problem with that?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:36:11 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>><snip>
>>>The only problem is that you never have put your 102" ss up against
>>> the antenna I am speaking of, and we should never trust the claim of
>>>others. You and me included.
>>>
>>======
>>
>>It still astounds me that people such as you think the rest of us are
>>so dumb as to fall for your lame-brained fallacies. Well, we aren't.
>
>I stand corrected. You should never say never.


No, -YOU- should never say never.


>>>I've suggested reasons for the results, but admitted that I don't have
>>>a definitive conclusion as to WHY the results were as is,nor do I have
>>>to in order to post the results.
>>
>>
>>What's the difference between that and peddling snake-oil?
>
>Because I admit that I am not sure of the reasons for the result but I
>am sure of the result. I am not peddling anything other than the
>truth. You don't have to buy it.


So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
did, correct?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:44:56 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:

>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:37:42 -0500, wrote in
>:
>
>>
>>>>>Send me an antenna and I'll do the test. Well?
>>>>
>>>>Are you on welfare? I owe you nothing.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have no intention of keeping it -- I wouldn't -dare- drive around
>>>town with that gawd-awful contraption on my truck. Rest assured I'll
>>>send it back. So whaddya say?
>>
>>You have proven through the years to be less than honorable, so no,
>>I will make no attempt to loan you anything.
>
>
>How about I send you a deposit for the cost of the antenna, then when
>I return it you send the deposit back? Any problem with that?
>
No deal. If it is important to you then you would find a way to test
these antennas. I don't generally loan anything out.

[jim]

wrote:

>>>You don't need a antenna test range to determine relative gains.
>>>I can only confirm the antennas I have tested. The R-S 102"ss
>>>and the Workman X-Terminator are two of them.
>
>
>>Maybe so but what would convince an operator who has never used either
>>to pick your choice of an ant over the other? Just because you said so?
>
>
> No. I said you don't have to believe me. The best I can do is to hope
> that someone's interest has been sparked enough so that they would
> do the side by side test them self. No one has bothered, so no one can
> do any better than hypothesize.
>
>
>>Nothing you have posted has proven the relative worth of an X-terminator
>>being a better ant than any 102" whip. General consesus on this board
>>claims the 102" whip is superior to anything else. Not saying you are an
>>agent for the X-terminator but where are the hard facts?
>
>
> True, the general consensus is that I am wrong. Years ago the general
> consensus was that the world was flat.
hehehe hopefully you found an ant that is better than the whip and you
will go down in the annals of history as another copernicus. cheers as
its getting late on the east coast.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:49:03 -0500, wrote in
>:

>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:44:56 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:37:42 -0500, wrote in
>:
>>
>>>
>>>>>>Send me an antenna and I'll do the test. Well?
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you on welfare? I owe you nothing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have no intention of keeping it -- I wouldn't -dare- drive around
>>>>town with that gawd-awful contraption on my truck. Rest assured I'll
>>>>send it back. So whaddya say?
>>>
>>>You have proven through the years to be less than honorable, so no,
>>>I will make no attempt to loan you anything.
>>
>>
>>How about I send you a deposit for the cost of the antenna, then when
>>I return it you send the deposit back? Any problem with that?
>>
>No deal. If it is important to you then you would find a way to test
>these antennas. I don't generally loan anything out.


Okay, then how about this: I'll buy one of those antennas, and if it
doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' whip then you agree to buy
it from me for the price I paid plus shipping. After all, if the
antenna is as good as you say it is then you shouldn't have any
problem reselling it, right? So?






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>> True, the general consensus is that I am wrong. Years ago the general
>> consensus was that the world was flat.
>hehehe hopefully you found an ant that is better than the whip and you
>will go down in the annals of history as another copernicus. cheers as
>its getting late on the east coast.

It looks like I have to explain once again exactly what I am saying.

No shortened antenna can beat a full 1/4 wave length antenna of good
design. I have shown this in my tests. The X-Terminator can be beat by
a 1/4 wave length antenna, but with the same tests the X-Terminator
can beat the RS 102" ss whip.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>Okay, then how about this: I'll buy one of those antennas, and if it
>doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' whip then you agree to buy
>it from me for the price I paid plus shipping. After all, if the
>antenna is as good as you say it is then you shouldn't have any
>problem reselling it, right? So?

I said these posts have been direct. So I guess I'll continue.

I don't trust much of anything about you. NO

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:59:11 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>> True, the general consensus is that I am wrong. Years ago the general
>>> consensus was that the world was flat.
>>hehehe hopefully you found an ant that is better than the whip and you
>>will go down in the annals of history as another copernicus. cheers as
>>its getting late on the east coast.
>
>It looks like I have to explain once again exactly what I am saying.
>
>No shortened antenna can beat a full 1/4 wave length antenna of good
>design. I have shown this in my tests. The X-Terminator can be beat by
>a 1/4 wave length antenna, but with the same tests the X-Terminator
>can beat the RS 102" ss whip.


Then how or why is the RS 102" whip a 'bad' design? Heck, it's just a
straight, single piece of steel rod with a little ball on the end,
just like every other SS whip, even the ones on cop cars. So what
makes RS whips so bad that their performance is worse than a 5' loaded
antenna? Or, if that's what you can't figure out, then what comprises
a "good" design for a 1/4-wave whip? Selling it at a different store?
I hope not, since those whips aren't exclusive to Radio Shaft -- the
store chain is only a distributor, not the manufacturer, and you can
be certain that the same whips have been sold under other brand names.
Have you tried any other brand name 102" whips?








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>No shortened antenna can beat a full 1/4 wave length antenna of good
>>design. I have shown this in my tests. The X-Terminator can be beat by
>>a 1/4 wave length antenna, but with the same tests the X-Terminator
>>can beat the RS 102" ss whip.
>
>
>Then how or why is the RS 102" whip a 'bad' design?

It's secondary and arguable as to why it does what it does. All one
really has to know is what it does.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:03:37 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>Okay, then how about this: I'll buy one of those antennas, and if it
>>doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' whip then you agree to buy
>>it from me for the price I paid plus shipping. After all, if the
>>antenna is as good as you say it is then you shouldn't have any
>>problem reselling it, right? So?
>
>I said these posts have been direct. So I guess I'll continue.
>
>I don't trust much of anything about you. NO


Well you sure don't seem too willing to put your money where your
mouth is...... are you so financially strapped that you can't afford
to take the risk on someone who has not only bought and sold radios in
this newsgroup without any complaints, but has also sent free parts to
some on occasion? Or is my identity so obscured that you think I'll
disappear into the shadows with your precious antenna, never to be
heard from again?

Naw, you're just making excuses because you are afraid of an objective
test of your antenna. I'm suprised you didn't try to pre-empt my offer
by suggesting that the results of any test I make will be biased, but
then again you are kinda slow.....

Final offer: You find someone in my area with one of your antennas and
we'll go test them up on the plains. The testing will be monitored by
your volunteer so there will be no doubt about the results. Then I'll
post the results in the newsgroup. How 'bout it, tnom?








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:14:46 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>No shortened antenna can beat a full 1/4 wave length antenna of good
>>>design. I have shown this in my tests. The X-Terminator can be beat by
>>>a 1/4 wave length antenna, but with the same tests the X-Terminator
>>>can beat the RS 102" ss whip.
>>
>>
>>Then how or why is the RS 102" whip a 'bad' design?
>
>It's secondary and arguable as to why it does what it does. All one
>really has to know is what it does.


But we only have your word on that, which seems to differ from the
word of everyone else in this group. But according to you, "we should
never trust the claim of others. You and me included." So dig right
into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>>Okay, then how about this: I'll buy one of those antennas, and if it
>>>doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' whip then you agree to buy
>>>it from me for the price I paid plus shipping. After all, if the
>>>antenna is as good as you say it is then you shouldn't have any
>>>problem reselling it, right? So?
>>
>>I said these posts have been direct. So I guess I'll continue.
>>
>>I don't trust much of anything about you. NO
>
>
>Well you sure don't seem too willing to put your money where your
>mouth is......

I already did. I bought the antennas.

>are you so financially strapped that you can't afford
>to take the risk on someone who has not only bought and sold radios in
>this newsgroup without any complaints, but has also sent free parts to
>some on occasion?

Who's financially strapped?

>Or is my identity so obscured that you think I'll
>disappear into the shadows with your precious antenna, never to be
>heard from again?

As you said " put your money where your mouth is...... "

>Naw, you're just making excuses because you are afraid of an objective
>test of your antenna. I'm suprised you didn't try to pre-empt my offer
>by suggesting that the results of any test I make will be biased, but
>then again you are kinda slow.....

A test coming from you would be suspect, but it doesn't matter because
you'll never do the test anyway.
>
>Final offer: You find someone in my area with one of your antennas and
>we'll go test them up on the plains. The testing will be monitored by
>your volunteer so there will be no doubt about the results. Then I'll
>post the results in the newsgroup. How 'bout it, tnom?

Final offer..........Put your money where your mouth is. Oh, I
forgot. You are financially strapped.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>It's secondary and arguable as to why it does what it does. All one
>>really has to know is what it does.
>
>
>But we only have your word on that, which seems to differ from the
>word of everyone else in this group.

What's my word based on? A test. What's your word based on?
Consensus?

> But according to you, "we should
>never trust the claim of others. You and me included."

No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't
have to believe me.

> So dig right
>into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
>makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?

I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
as to why it didn't perform.

[DrDeath]

"Steveo" > wrote in message
...
> "DrDeath" > wrote:
>> "Big Rich Soprano" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>Mounted properly the 102" is king.
>> >
>> >
>> >>King of what?
>> >
>> >
>> > King of beers?
>>
>> That would be Budweiser!
>>
> Hiccup, nope that's rolling rock!

I grew up 4 blocks from the brewery. Augie owned St.Louis. We had weird laws
that said to sell your beer in StL you have to brew it in StL.

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
>
>>> Power handling aside the 102" stainless steel whip is a good antenna
>>> but can be marginally beat by other shorter antennas. These shorter
>>> antennas tend to consist of large diameter antenna stock made of brass
>>> or copper usually with a chrome plating. They also are center loaded
>>> with a large diameter air gapped coil.. One such antenna, and I'm sure
>>> there are others, is the X-terminator at about five foot tall.
>>
>>I've never used that brand before, but have used many other base and
>>center
>>loaded units. You certainly can't count on manufactures claims of their
>>products performance. I'll put my 102" up against any I have used in the
>>past any day of the week. Nobody in my town can out talk me on the mobile.
>>
>
> You made two statements that need to be examined
>
> 1. Never trust manufacturers claims (or individuals)
>
> 2. You put your 102" up against others.
>
> The only problem is that you never have put your 102" ss up against
> the antenna I am speaking of, and we should never trust the claim of
> others. You and me included.
>
> So how do YOU find the truth? You must make a side by side comparison
> as I have. Any claims based on anything less than that is just a waste
> of discussion.

I agree.

[DrDeath]

"Steveo" > wrote in message
...
> "DrDeath" > wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 12:10:41 -0600, "DrDeath"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>>> Let the games begin.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Mounted properly the 102" is king.
>> >>>
>> >>> King of what?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Of mobile antennas of course. Unless your participating in a keydown
>> >>and need some oil cooled coil, you will get the best results with a
>> >>102" and they are good (most of them) to 1kw.
>> >>
>> > You will get good results but not necessarily the best results.
>>
>> How so? Give me an example. Unless Jay wants to put an I10K on his truck.
>> Out in the desert he could weld 20 foot of tower in the bed. LOL
>>
> F that, Jay's gonna make a pdl2 clone before he dick's with those portable
> antennas..we already have that 10K stuff swinging in the breeze.
>
> Right, J? hehehe

I'd like to see a well made PDL2 on the market.

[DrDeath]

"Steveo" > wrote in message
...
> "DrDeath" > wrote:
>> "Steveo" > wrote in message
>> Snipped
>>
>> > The 102" rocks, except for its tree pruning and over-hang scraping
>> > qualities..oh and it's a bit on the odious side appearance wise. I have
>> > that mount and a Wilson 1000 on one of my trucks, I rarely put the 102"
>> > on because of the noise it makes banging off of things, and it's
>> > somewhat directional mounted on the step bumper. (good dx shooter)
>> >
>> > The Wilson 1000 mag mount is hard to beat for most practical
>> > applications.
>>
>> I have mine mounted in the center of my truck box, puts it pretty close
>> to center. I have to tie down for the drive through.
>>
> The 102?

Yup, drilled 4 holes in the back side in the center of the box and covered
it with silicone and used a mirror mount. But with the 4 inch lift and the
big mudders I had to tie it down to go through the drive through the car
wash has a truck bay so no problems there. Mind you this is not my daily
driver, not at 8mpg.

[Steveo]

"DrDeath" > wrote:
> "Steveo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "DrDeath" > wrote:
> >> "Big Rich Soprano" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>>Mounted properly the 102" is king.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>King of what?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > King of beers?
> >>
> >> That would be Budweiser!
> >>
> > Hiccup, nope that's rolling rock!
>
> I grew up 4 blocks from the brewery. Augie owned St.Louis. We had weird
> laws that said to sell your beer in StL you have to brew it in StL.
>
Cool. I was born next to a coal mine in Beckly West Virginia in 1960! :)

I

--
30GB/month http://newsreader.com/

[Steveo]

"DrDeath" > wrote:
> "Steveo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "DrDeath" > wrote:
> >> "Steveo" > wrote in message
> >> Snipped
> >>
> >> > The 102" rocks, except for its tree pruning and over-hang scraping
> >> > qualities..oh and it's a bit on the odious side appearance wise. I
> >> > have that mount and a Wilson 1000 on one of my trucks, I rarely put
> >> > the 102" on because of the noise it makes banging off of things, and
> >> > it's somewhat directional mounted on the step bumper. (good dx
> >> > shooter)
> >> >
> >> > The Wilson 1000 mag mount is hard to beat for most practical
> >> > applications.
> >>
> >> I have mine mounted in the center of my truck box, puts it pretty
> >> close to center. I have to tie down for the drive through.
> >>
> > The 102?
>
> Yup, drilled 4 holes in the back side in the center of the box and
> covered it with silicone and used a mirror mount. But with the 4 inch
> lift and the big mudders I had to tie it down to go through the drive
> through the car wash has a truck bay so no problems there. Mind you this
> is not my daily driver, not at 8mpg.
>
So it sorta looked like Mayberry Andy's antenna? nip it. :)

--
30GB/month http://newsreader.com/

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
>
>>> True, the general consensus is that I am wrong. Years ago the general
>>> consensus was that the world was flat.
>>hehehe hopefully you found an ant that is better than the whip and you
>>will go down in the annals of history as another copernicus. cheers as
>>its getting late on the east coast.
>
> It looks like I have to explain once again exactly what I am saying.
>
> No shortened antenna can beat a full 1/4 wave length antenna of good
> design. I have shown this in my tests. The X-Terminator can be beat by
> a 1/4 wave length antenna, but with the same tests the X-Terminator
> can beat the RS 102" ss whip.

No, you stated that you only tested it against a RS 102". You never stated
"No shortened antenna can beat a full 1/4 wave length antenna of good
design" until this post.

[DrDeath]

"Steveo" > wrote in message
...
> Frank Gilliland > wrote:
>>> We've been through this before, tnom -- chrome-plated anything isn't
>> much better than stainless steel -snip-
>>
> Eh, one is plated and the other is solid. I like stainless for longevity.

You got that right.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>> No shortened antenna can beat a full 1/4 wave length antenna of good
>> design. I have shown this in my tests. The X-Terminator can be beat by
>> a 1/4 wave length antenna, but with the same tests the X-Terminator
>> can beat the RS 102" ss whip.
>
>No, you stated that you only tested it against a RS 102". You never stated
>"No shortened antenna can beat a full 1/4 wave length antenna of good
>design" until this post.
>
I have said that many times today and in the past. I have even shown
1/4 wave antennas that will beat the X-Terminator.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:40:17 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>>Okay, then how about this: I'll buy one of those antennas, and if it
>>>>doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' whip then you agree to buy
>>>>it from me for the price I paid plus shipping. After all, if the
>>>>antenna is as good as you say it is then you shouldn't have any
>>>>problem reselling it, right? So?
>>>
>>>I said these posts have been direct. So I guess I'll continue.
>>>
>>>I don't trust much of anything about you. NO
>>
>>
>>Well you sure don't seem too willing to put your money where your
>>mouth is......
>
>I already did. I bought the antennas.
>
>>are you so financially strapped that you can't afford
>>to take the risk on someone who has not only bought and sold radios in
>>this newsgroup without any complaints, but has also sent free parts to
>>some on occasion?
>
>Who's financially strapped?
>
>>Or is my identity so obscured that you think I'll
>>disappear into the shadows with your precious antenna, never to be
>>heard from again?
>
>As you said " put your money where your mouth is...... "


I offered to send you a deposit and I offered to buy one. Not
suprisingly, you refused.


>>Naw, you're just making excuses because you are afraid of an objective
>>test of your antenna. I'm suprised you didn't try to pre-empt my offer
>>by suggesting that the results of any test I make will be biased, but
>>then again you are kinda slow.....
>
>A test coming from you would be suspect, but it doesn't matter because
>you'll never do the test anyway.


Gee, another soothsayer. Did you inherit Dave Hall's crystal ball?


>>
>>Final offer: You find someone in my area with one of your antennas and
>>we'll go test them up on the plains. The testing will be monitored by
>>your volunteer so there will be no doubt about the results. Then I'll
>>post the results in the newsgroup. How 'bout it, tnom?
>
>Final offer..........Put your money where your mouth is. Oh, I
>forgot. You are financially strapped.


No, I'm financially responsible. That means I'm not willing to risk my
money on antennas based on purported claims of subjective tests from a
single source that can't explain why the results don't obey the laws
of physics. If you did then that's your problem, but don't expect me
to be as foolish with -my- money as you are with yours.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:45:30 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>It's secondary and arguable as to why it does what it does. All one
>>>really has to know is what it does.
>>
>>
>>But we only have your word on that, which seems to differ from the
>>word of everyone else in this group.
>
>What's my word based on? A test.


A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no
independent verification.


> What's your word based on?
>Consensus?


Common sense and the laws of physics.


>> But according to you, "we should
>>never trust the claim of others. You and me included."
>
>No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't
>have to believe me.


Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?


>> So dig right
>>into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
>>makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?
>
> I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
>as to why it didn't perform.


But I want -your- hypothesis, tnom.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Lancer]

Frank Gilliland wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer > wrote in
> <retet1pmcedd6m33kunpolbejflla9iq08@2355323778>:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:02:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:55:38 +0000 (UTC), Skipp out in left field
> wrote in >:
>>>
>>>>: Professor > wrote:
>>>>: You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
>>>>: performance if mounted in the proper location...
>>>>
>>>>What about gain antennas such as the common 1/2 or 5/8 wave?
>>>
>>>
>>>Assuming this is a mobile install.....
>>>
>>>A 1/2w antenna is not a "gain" antenna and requires a high-impedance
>>>feed. A 5/8w also requires some impedance matching at the base, but
>>>its benefits in a mobile installation aren't realized because of the
>>>heavy loading required (a 5/8w at 11m is about 22 feet high!).
>>
>>Frank;
>> A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?
>
>
> Sure, if it's standing a full 18 feet tall.
>
>
Now you know thats what I meant when I asked that question...

Hey BTW all of your rain is now down here...

Thanks...

[Lancer]

james wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:44:19 GMT, Lancer > wrote:
>
>>+<On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:20:36 GMT, james > wrote:
>>+<
>>+<>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer > wrote:
>>+<>
>>+<>>+<Frank;
>>+<>>+< A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?
>>+<>*****
>>+<>
>>+<>Correct it doesn't
>>+<>
>>+<>james
>>+<Really, a 1/2 wave vertical has no gain over a 1/4 wave vertical?
>>+<
>>+<Go back to school... you missed something..
> ******
>
> missed nothing. Just wanted to see your reaction.
>
> I am pleased with your reaction. Thanks
>
> james

No problem...glad to make your day...

Go blow a goat.. (Steveo your turn to turn me in to the SPCA...)

[tnom@mucks.net]

>No, I'm financially responsible. That means I'm not willing to risk my
>money on antennas based on purported claims of subjective tests from a
>single source that can't explain why the results don't obey the laws
>of physics. If you did then that's your problem, but don't expect me
>to be as foolish with -my- money as you are with yours.

Put your money where your mouth is. Stop asking for a handout.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>What's my word based on? A test.
>
>A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no
>independent verification.

A test is better than no test.

>> What's your word based on?
>>Consensus?

>Common sense and the laws of physics.

Consensus and incomplete laws of physics

>>> But according to you, "we should
>>>never trust the claim of others. You and me included."
>>
>>No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't
>>have to believe me.
>
>Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?
>
If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that
response to you. You have it down pat.

>>> So dig right
>>>into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
>>>makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?
>>
>> I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
>>as to why it didn't perform.
>
>
>But I want -your- hypothesis, tnom.

Why the results?

You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture.
Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an
endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
facts. Run the test and stop posturing.

[Steveo]

Lancer > wrote:
> james wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:44:19 GMT, Lancer > wrote:
> >
> >>+<On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:20:36 GMT, james >
> >>wrote: +<
> >>+<>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer > wrote:
> >>+<>
> >>+<>>+<Frank;
> >>+<>>+< A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?
> >>+<>*****
> >>+<>
> >>+<>Correct it doesn't
> >>+<>
> >>+<>james
> >>+<Really, a 1/2 wave vertical has no gain over a 1/4 wave vertical?
> >>+<
> >>+<Go back to school... you missed something..
> > ******
> >
> > missed nothing. Just wanted to see your reaction.
> >
> > I am pleased with your reaction. Thanks
> >
> > james
>
> No problem...glad to make your day...
>
> Go blow a goat.. (Steveo your turn to turn me in to the SPCA...)
>
Citizen's arrest!

--
30GB/month http://newsreader.com/

[james]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:27:56 GMT, Lancer > wrote:

>+<james wrote:
>+<
>+<> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:44:19 GMT, Lancer > wrote:
>+<>
>+<>>+<On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:20:36 GMT, james > wrote:
>+<>>+<
>+<>>+<>On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer > wrote:
>+<>>+<>
>+<>>+<>>+<Frank;
>+<>>+<>>+< A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?
>+<>>+<>*****
>+<>>+<>
>+<>>+<>Correct it doesn't
>+<>>+<>
>+<>>+<>james
>+<>>+<Really, a 1/2 wave vertical has no gain over a 1/4 wave vertical?
>+<>>+<
>+<>>+<Go back to school... you missed something..
>+<> ******
>+<>
>+<> missed nothing. Just wanted to see your reaction.
>+<>
>+<> I am pleased with your reaction. Thanks
>+<>
>+<> james
>+<
>+<No problem...glad to make your day...
>+<
>+<Go blow a goat.. (Steveo your turn to turn me in to the SPCA...)
*****

Sorry I am not into beastiality.

james

[james]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:17:32 GMT, Lancer > wrote:

>+<Frank Gilliland wrote:
>+<
>+<> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer > wrote in
>+<> <retet1pmcedd6m33kunpolbejflla9iq08@2355323778>:
>+<>
>+<>>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:02:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:
>+<>>
>+<>>>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:55:38 +0000 (UTC), Skipp out in left field
> wrote in >:
>+<>>>
>+<>>>>: Professor > wrote:
>+<>>>>: You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
>+<>>>>: performance if mounted in the proper location...
>+<>>>>
>+<>>>>What about gain antennas such as the common 1/2 or 5/8 wave?
>+<>>>
>+<>>>
>+<>>>Assuming this is a mobile install.....
>+<>>>
>+<>>>A 1/2w antenna is not a "gain" antenna and requires a high-impedance
>+<>>>feed. A 5/8w also requires some impedance matching at the base, but
>+<>>>its benefits in a mobile installation aren't realized because of the
>+<>>>heavy loading required (a 5/8w at 11m is about 22 feet high!).
>+<>>
>+<>>Frank;
>+<>> A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?
>+<>
>+<>
>+<> Sure, if it's standing a full 18 feet tall.
>+<>
>+<>
>+<Now you know thats what I meant when I asked that question...
>+<
>+<Hey BTW all of your rain is now down here...
>+<
>+<Thanks...
*****
Lets play double jeopardy!!!


The answer is 2.15 dBi

what is the question?

james

[tnom@mucks.net]

On 24 Jan 2006 19:28:09 -0800, wrote:

>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>with the whip ?


You don't need the 102" stainless. I will re-post two separate tests
that confirmed that an antenna like the X-Terminator can perform
better than the 102" stainless.

*The main reason I did the test in the first place was to debunk the
notion that a short antenna like the X-Terminator could outperform the
102" stainless. I couldn't debunk it.

********************************************
FIRST TEST

I have just completed another test of mobile antennas. Last time I
posted the results of the 7' Firestik compared to the 108" whip.
The Firestik won by a small margin. This time six antennas were
tested. They were kept anonymous to the signal readers until
after the figures were compiled. Each antenna was assigned a
letter. Here's the list:

108" stainless steel whip A
8' Francis Amazer B
7' Firestik C
6'6" Hustler top load D
5'4" X-Terminator double coil E
9' homemade 1" braid antenna F

A picture of these antennas and the mount
is located in (alt.binaries.pictures).
The file is called (antennas.jpg)
* The braided antenna is not shown.
It was included in the test after the picture
was taken.

The conditions of this test follow:

1. All connected to Hustler Quick disconnects
2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better
3. All tested with a constant tone, constant power transmitter
4. All used on a three magnet mount on the roof of a truck
5. All tested from a parked vehicle that never moved during the test
6. All tested within a very brief time period of each other (15 sec.)
7. All used two stationary receivers 14 miles away.

The analog S meter of a Kenwood and Tentec were used to
compile these numbers. These numbers were averaged after
numerous checks and rechecks to make sure the order of
best to worst was accurate. Here they are:

Tentec: F, 3.1 S units
E, 3.05
A, 3
B, 2.85
D, 2.7
C, 2.65

Kenwood: F, 2.3 S units
E&B tied at 2.2
D-C tied at 2.15
A, 2.1

Two things come to mind.
1. All these antennas are close.
2. Antenna E, easily the shortest, outperformed
or equaled everything except antenna * F

* ( antenna F is an impractical antenna. It consist of
a one inch wire braid covering a fiberglass rod 9'
tall)

***************************************

FOLLOW UP TEST

I won't dare say anything about the results. I'll just post the
numbers. Comments welcome.

The antennas:

108" whip
7 foot Firestik
5'4" X- Terminator double coil


The conditions of this test follow:

1. All connected to Hustler Quick disconnects
2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better
3. All tested with a constant tone, constant power transmitter
4. All used on a three magnet mount on the roof of a truck
5. All tested from a parked vehicle that never moved during each test
6. All tested within a very brief time period of each other (15 sec.)
7. All used a stationary Kenwood 940 receiver.
8. 940 used a vertical beam free and clear of obstacles.
9. A video camera and 31" television was used to display
a (31" S- METER) and record the results.

Thirteen mile free and clear test

108" 5.2 S-units
Firestik 5.3 S-units
X-Term 5.4 S-units

Thirteen mile in the middle of the woods test

108" 3.3 S-units
Firestik 3.7 S-units
X-Term 3.9 S-units

Twenty four mile free and clear test

108" .25 S-units
Firestik 1.3 S-units
X-Term 1.5 S-units

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:17:32 GMT, Lancer > wrote in
>:

>Frank Gilliland wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer > wrote in
>> <retet1pmcedd6m33kunpolbejflla9iq08@2355323778>:
>>
>>>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:02:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:55:38 +0000 (UTC), Skipp out in left field
> wrote in >:
>>>>
>>>>>: Professor > wrote:
>>>>>: You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in
>>>>>: performance if mounted in the proper location...
>>>>>
>>>>>What about gain antennas such as the common 1/2 or 5/8 wave?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Assuming this is a mobile install.....
>>>>
>>>>A 1/2w antenna is not a "gain" antenna and requires a high-impedance
>>>>feed. A 5/8w also requires some impedance matching at the base, but
>>>>its benefits in a mobile installation aren't realized because of the
>>>>heavy loading required (a 5/8w at 11m is about 22 feet high!).
>>>
>>>Frank;
>>> A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave?
>>
>>
>> Sure, if it's standing a full 18 feet tall.
>>
>>
>Now you know thats what I meant when I asked that question...
>
>Hey BTW all of your rain is now down here...
>
>Thanks...


You're welcome, and we still have more if you want it.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:40:34 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>No, I'm financially responsible. That means I'm not willing to risk my
>>money on antennas based on purported claims of subjective tests from a
>>single source that can't explain why the results don't obey the laws
>>of physics. If you did then that's your problem, but don't expect me
>>to be as foolish with -my- money as you are with yours.
>
>Put your money where your mouth is. Stop asking for a handout.


I offered to buy one of these antenna on the condition that you will
buy it from me -IF- it doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' RS
whip as per your alleged test results. If you had -any- confidence in
your test results then there is absolutely no risk on your part, the
financial 'burden' would be mine, and I would end up with a pretty
good antenna (according to you). So how is that "asking for a
handout"?










----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:54:29 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>What's my word based on? A test.
>>
>>A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no
>>independent verification.
>
>A test is better than no test.


The Michelson-Morley experiment exposed that fallacy.


>>> What's your word based on?
>>>Consensus?
>
>>Common sense and the laws of physics.
>
>Consensus and incomplete laws of physics


Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not
a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an
open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different
antennas. Go for it.


>>>> But according to you, "we should
>>>>never trust the claim of others. You and me included."
>>>
>>>No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't
>>>have to believe me.
>>
>>Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?
>>
>If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that
>response to you. You have it down pat.


Where did I change your numbers, tnom? I am suggesting you make the
effort to research the reasons behind your results. The way it looks
now, you don't care about the reasons just as long as the results
agree with your opinion. That's not truth, tnom -- that's deception
(and it's a good thing you aren't selling these antennas because you
could be charged with the crime of misrepresentation and/or deceptive
business practices).


>>>> So dig right
>>>>into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
>>>>makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?
>>>
>>> I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
>>>as to why it didn't perform.
>>
>>
>>But I want -your- hypothesis, tnom.
>
>Why the results?
>
>You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture.
>Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an
>endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
>facts. Run the test and stop posturing.


I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim
then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't
achieve the same results. Well?








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:53:53 -0500, wrote in
>:

>On 24 Jan 2006 19:28:09 -0800, wrote:
>
>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>with the whip ?
>
>
>You don't need the 102" stainless. I will re-post two separate tests
>that confirmed that an antenna like the X-Terminator can perform
>better than the 102" stainless.
>
>*The main reason I did the test in the first place was to debunk the
>notion that a short antenna like the X-Terminator could outperform the
>102" stainless. I couldn't debunk it.
<snip>


I debunked -your- tests a long time ago, tnom:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.cb/msg/7b89e982354d79ae?hl=en&

Then, like now, you resorted to name-calling to back up your results.










----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Vinnie S.]

On 28 Jan 2006 01:42:39 GMT, Steveo > wrote:

>Frank Gilliland > wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:18:22 -0500, wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> >
>> >>I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform
>> >>better than any loaded antenna.
>> >
>> >In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can
>> >be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas.
>>
>> Wrong. By it's very nature, a loaded antenna loses some power in the
>> loading coil and therefore is not as efficient as an antenna without
>> one. The only way a shorter antenna could outperform a full-length
>> 1/4-wave whip is if it had some way to pull down the take-off angle.
>> So far, nobody has provided any theory or empirical evidence that any
>> such antenna exists, or is even possible.
>>
>The 102 is the best portable antenna you can buy, bottom line. (cheap too)
>
>It takes a real CBer to drive around with one every day tho.


72 posts fot a 102" whip? WTF? ISee what happens when I leave you incharge for
a few days !

Vinnie S.

[DrLife@hotmai.comyour name]

> "Steveo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "DrDeath" > wrote:
> >> "Steveo" > wrote in message
> >> Snipped
> >>
> >> > The 102" rocks, except for its tree pruning and over-hang scraping
> >> > qualities..oh and it's a bit on the odious side appearance wise. I have
> >> > that mount and a Wilson 1000 on one of my trucks, I rarely put the 102"
> >> > on because of the noise it makes banging off of things, and it's
> >> > somewhat directional mounted on the step bumper. (good dx shooter)
> >> >
> >> > The Wilson 1000 mag mount is hard to beat for most practical
> >> > applications.
> >>
> >> I have mine mounted in the center of my truck box, puts it pretty close
> >> to center. I have to tie down for the drive through.
> >>
> > The 102?
>
> Yup, drilled 4 holes in the back side in the center of the box and covered
> it with silicone and used a mirror mount. But with the 4 inch lift and the
> big mudders I had to tie it down to go through the drive through the car
> wash has a truck bay so no problems there. Mind you this is not my daily
> driver, not at 8mpg.

Get rid of the linear.

[tnom@mucks.net]

On 24 Jan 2006 19:28:09 -0800, wrote:

>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>with the whip ?

Here's another antenna test post I dug out of the archives.

********************************************

I did this test a few years ago (minus the Wilson), at least as best
I could. The problem is that when swapping the magmounts the
position might change a little bit. If the position changes a little
bit then the measured field strength may change a little bit also.
Seeing how all of these antennas are very close to begin with
then you have to wonder if the results may be off just a little bit?

Anyway's, I did run the test and attempted to calibrate the results
in db's . The calibration may be off a little bit, but the order from
the best to the worst as I measured IS accurate.

Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db

Of coarse since the time of this test I have found
and measured even better antennas. Of these the
practical ones all use large diameter masting made of
highly conductive material. A large diameter, air spaced
loading coil. This coil is always upwardly located and the
overall antenna height

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:04:47 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:40:34 -0500, wrote in
>:
>
>>
>>>No, I'm financially responsible. That means I'm not willing to risk my
>>>money on antennas based on purported claims of subjective tests from a
>>>single source that can't explain why the results don't obey the laws
>>>of physics. If you did then that's your problem, but don't expect me
>>>to be as foolish with -my- money as you are with yours.
>>
>>Put your money where your mouth is. Stop asking for a handout.
>
>
>I offered to buy one of these antenna on the condition that you will
>buy it from me -IF- it doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' RS
>whip as per your alleged test results. If you had -any- confidence in
>your test results then there is absolutely no risk on your part, the
>financial 'burden' would be mine, and I would end up with a pretty
>good antenna (according to you). So how is that "asking for a
>handout"?

I might get cooties if I deal with you. Buy your own antenna.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not
>a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an
>open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different
>antennas. Go for it.

Any one who has read your posts over the past few years is probably
suffering from salt poisoning.

I don't have to know why the 102" ss is lousy, just as I don't have to
know why mercury is poison. All I need to know is that it is.

>>Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?
>>
>If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that
>response to you. You have it down pat.


>Where did I change your numbers, tnom?

You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
would ever run a test.

>>You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture.
>>Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an
>>endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
>>facts. Run the test and stop posturing.
>
>
>I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim
>then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't
>achieve the same results. Well?

I don't do charity, especially for you.

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:40:30 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:53:53 -0500, wrote in
>:
>
>>On 24 Jan 2006 19:28:09 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>>with the whip ?
>>
>>
>>You don't need the 102" stainless. I will re-post two separate tests
>>that confirmed that an antenna like the X-Terminator can perform
>>better than the 102" stainless.
>>
>>*The main reason I did the test in the first place was to debunk the
>>notion that a short antenna like the X-Terminator could outperform the
>>102" stainless. I couldn't debunk it.
><snip>
>
>
>I debunked -your- tests a long time ago, tnom:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.cb/msg/7b89e982354d79ae?hl=en&

You didn't debunk anything. The only thing you did was unnecessarily
swamp the issue with your dribble and conjecture.It does nothing
to prove that a 102'' Stainless Steel whip will outperform the
X-Terminator. If you really wanted to prove it you'd run the test.
You don't because it would upset your thinking on antennas.

>Then, like now, you resorted to name-calling to back up your results.

I said you might have cooties, I said you are dishonorable, but I
never resorted to name calling.

* I can now officially call you a name because you falsely accused me
of name calling. The truth can now be said. You are a liar.

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:42:48 -0500, wrote:

>On 24 Jan 2006 19:28:09 -0800, wrote:
>
>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>with the whip ?
>
>Here's another antenna test post I dug out of the archives.
>
>********************************************
>
> I did this test a few years ago (minus the Wilson), at least as best
>I could. The problem is that when swapping the magmounts the
>position might change a little bit. If the position changes a little
>bit then the measured field strength may change a little bit also.
>Seeing how all of these antennas are very close to begin with
>then you have to wonder if the results may be off just a little bit?
>
>Anyway's, I did run the test and attempted to calibrate the results
>in db's . The calibration may be off a little bit, but the order from
>the best to the worst as I measured IS accurate.
>
>Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
>5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
>6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
>108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>
>Of coarse since the time of this test I have found
>and measured even better antennas. Of these the
>practical ones all use large diameter masting made of
>highly conductive material. A large diameter, air spaced
>loading coil. This coil is always upwardly located and the
>overall antenna height is overfive feet tall.

^ corrected post ^

[acryfordecency2@Mark.Morgan.com]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:22:05 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:54:29 -0500, wrote in
>:
>
>>
>>>>What's my word based on? A test.
>>>
>>>A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no
>>>independent verification.
>>
>>A test is better than no test.
>
>
>The Michelson-Morley experiment exposed that fallacy.
ah yes the experiment whose results would support some strange ideas
(both true and not) one being that the Opes were right and Galieio was
worng the other modern physics
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

[Scott in Baltimore]

>>108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>>7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db


I still think my KW-7 kicks butt! I talk skip on AM and SSB using
a small 2 pill on low.

[Professor]

Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db

So let me understand these readings you made... the DLX antenna was
your baseline?

Professor
www.telstar-electronics.com

[tnom@mucks.net]

On 29 Jan 2006 05:21:39 -0800, "Professor"
> wrote:

>Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
>5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
>6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
>108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>
>So let me understand these readings you made... the DLX antenna was
>your baseline?

Yes. It was the lowest and became the reference

[Steveo]

Vinnie S. > wrote:
>> 72 posts fot a 102" whip? WTF? ISee what happens when I leave you
> incharge for a few days !
>
> Vinnie S.
>
Crack that whip!

--
30GB/month http://newsreader.com/

[Jay in the Mojave]

wrote:

> On 29 Jan 2006 05:21:39 -0800, "Professor"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>>K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>>Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
>>5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
>>6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
>>108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>>7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>>
>>So let me understand these readings you made... the DLX antenna was
>>your baseline?
>
>
> Yes. It was the lowest and became the reference

Hello Tnom:

Good going doing the testing. There are a lot of guys out there that do
not test anything and just recite books. Usually the guys who write the
books aren't the guys who design and test the antennas. And that testing
data is held quiet in the companies files.

I hear this recited stuff all the time. But theres no substitute for
hands on testing and comparison testing.

What was used for the field strength measuring device?

Jay in the Mojave

Kreedentials:

Rock n Roll Fan
CB radio Operator
Ownwer 1977 Ford F250, has worlds loudest PA System, is a blast at oldie
but goodie night at the drive in, but is missing drivers window
Antennna enthusiasts type of guy
Can solder on PL-259 connectors onto Coaxs

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
>> "Steveo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "DrDeath" > wrote:
>> >> "Steveo" > wrote in message
>> >> Snipped
>> >>
>> >> > The 102" rocks, except for its tree pruning and over-hang scraping
>> >> > qualities..oh and it's a bit on the odious side appearance wise. I
>> >> > have
>> >> > that mount and a Wilson 1000 on one of my trucks, I rarely put the
>> >> > 102"
>> >> > on because of the noise it makes banging off of things, and it's
>> >> > somewhat directional mounted on the step bumper. (good dx shooter)
>> >> >
>> >> > The Wilson 1000 mag mount is hard to beat for most practical
>> >> > applications.
>> >>
>> >> I have mine mounted in the center of my truck box, puts it pretty
>> >> close
>> >> to center. I have to tie down for the drive through.
>> >>
>> > The 102?
>>
>> Yup, drilled 4 holes in the back side in the center of the box and
>> covered
>> it with silicone and used a mirror mount. But with the 4 inch lift and
>> the
>> big mudders I had to tie it down to go through the drive through the car
>> wash has a truck bay so no problems there. Mind you this is not my daily
>> driver, not at 8mpg.
>
> Get rid of the linear.

Get a BIGGER linear.

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
> On 24 Jan 2006 19:28:09 -0800, wrote:
>
>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>with the whip ?
>
> Here's another antenna test post I dug out of the archives.
>
> ********************************************
>
> I did this test a few years ago (minus the Wilson), at least as best
> I could. The problem is that when swapping the magmounts the
> position might change a little bit. If the position changes a little
> bit then the measured field strength may change a little bit also.
> Seeing how all of these antennas are very close to begin with
> then you have to wonder if the results may be off just a little bit?
>
> Anyway's, I did run the test and attempted to calibrate the results
> in db's . The calibration may be off a little bit, but the order from
> the best to the worst as I measured IS accurate.
>
> Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
> K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
> Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
> 5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
> 6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
> 108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
> 7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>
> Of coarse since the time of this test I have found
> and measured even better antennas. Of these the
> practical ones all use large diameter masting made of
> highly conductive material. A large diameter, air spaced
> loading coil. This coil is always upwardly located and the
> overall antenna height

Damn Tnom, a 102 on a mag mount? You should be whipped. LOL

[DrLife@comcast.netyour name]

>
> >Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not
> >a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an
> >open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different
> >antennas. Go for it.
>
> Any one who has read your posts over the past few years is probably
> suffering from salt poisoning.
>
> I don't have to know why the 102" ss is lousy, just as I don't have to
> know why mercury is poison. All I need to know is that it is.
>
> >>Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?
> >>
> >If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that
> >response to you. You have it down pat.
>
>
> >Where did I change your numbers, tnom?
>
> You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
> would ever run a test.
>
> >>You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture.
> >>Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an
> >>endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
> >>facts. Run the test and stop posturing.
> >
> >
> >I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim
> >then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't
> >achieve the same results. Well?
>
> I don't do charity, especially for you.

What is the antenna you want to test? Is it a "mr. coily"? Is it a
"x-terminator"? I can tell you right now those are keyclown antennas
meant to appeal to truckers and keyclowns. They perform like ****,
but they look cool.

[DrLife@comcast.comyour name]

> On 29 Jan 2006 05:21:39 -0800, "Professor"
> > wrote:
>
> >Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
> >K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
> >Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
> >5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
> >6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
> >108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
> >7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
> >
> >So let me understand these readings you made... the DLX antenna was
> >your baseline?
>
> Yes. It was the lowest and became the reference

Uh Tnom, you can't make something a reference AFTER the
test. That's not how you do a baseline.

[Jack O'Neill]

wrote:

>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>with the whip ?
>
>
>
Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to
bend back quite a bit
when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got
myself a quick connect
and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This
way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for
transmission
and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick
disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and
put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very
pleased with it!!
73

Gen. J. O'Neill

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:58:32 -0800, Jay in the Mojave
> wrote in >:

<snip>
>What was used for the field strength measuring device?


And what was used to produce a constant tone, tnom?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:54:40 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not
>>a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an
>>open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different
>>antennas. Go for it.
>
> Any one who has read your posts over the past few years is probably
>suffering from salt poisoning.


Your sharp rhetoric is cutting me to pieces. Really it is. Oh dear, I
don't think I can take any more. Please stop.


>I don't have to know why the 102" ss is lousy, just as I don't have to
>know why mercury is poison. All I need to know is that it is.


Says you and -only- you.


>>>Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead?
>>>
>>If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that
>>response to you. You have it down pat.
>
>
>>Where did I change your numbers, tnom?
>
>You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
>would ever run a test.


Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
anticipated results -regardless- of what you stated as your reason for
running the tests, which was most likely a lie intented to add a false
legitimacy to the results. After all, why would you (or anyone else
for that matter) buy an expensive antenna when you expected it to
fail? That doesn't make any sense either, tnom.


>>>You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture.
>>>Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an
>>>endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
>>>facts. Run the test and stop posturing.
>>
>>
>>I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim
>>then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't
>>achieve the same results. Well?
>
>I don't do charity, especially for you.


How is that charity, tnom? If the antenna works like you say then you
aren't out a single penny. You can afford -nothing-, can't you? Or do
you -expect- your antenna to fail the test? That seems more likely.









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:44:26 -0500, wrote in
>:

>On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:04:47 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:40:34 -0500, wrote in
>:
>>
>>>
>>>>No, I'm financially responsible. That means I'm not willing to risk my
>>>>money on antennas based on purported claims of subjective tests from a
>>>>single source that can't explain why the results don't obey the laws
>>>>of physics. If you did then that's your problem, but don't expect me
>>>>to be as foolish with -my- money as you are with yours.
>>>
>>>Put your money where your mouth is. Stop asking for a handout.
>>
>>
>>I offered to buy one of these antenna on the condition that you will
>>buy it from me -IF- it doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' RS
>>whip as per your alleged test results. If you had -any- confidence in
>>your test results then there is absolutely no risk on your part, the
>>financial 'burden' would be mine, and I would end up with a pretty
>>good antenna (according to you). So how is that "asking for a
>>handout"?
>
>I might get cooties if I deal with you. Buy your own antenna.


That's the plan, tnom -- or couldn't you understand what I wrote?
Here, I lay it out point by point:

1. I buy the antenna.
2. I test the antenna.

Still with me here? Good.....

If the antenna meets or exceeds the performance of a Radio Shack 102"
SS whip then I post the results with an apology, end of story, exit
stage left, case closed.

BUT....

If the antenna -fails- then you buy the antenna for the price I paid.
Like I said in the other post, I'll even pay shipping. Do want a ham
to monitor the test and provide independent verification of the
results? I'm sure that won't be a problem.

So the -=ONLY=- way my test will cost you ANYTHING is if the antenna
fails to perform according to the results of your test.

Now is there anything about my proposal that you don't understand?

Is there .....ANYONE..... in this newsgroup who doesn't understand
what I just proposed?


So what'll it be, tnom? Are you going to back up your test or continue
to play stupid?








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>I might get cooties if I deal with you. Buy your own antenna.
>
>
>That's the plan, tnom -- or couldn't you understand what I wrote?
>Here, I lay it out point by point:
>
>1. I buy the antenna.
>2. I test the antenna.
>
>Still with me here? Good.....
>
>If the antenna meets or exceeds the performance of a Radio Shack 102"
>SS whip then I post the results with an apology, end of story, exit
>stage left, case closed.
>
>BUT....

No but.

>If the antenna -fails- then you buy the antenna for the price I paid.
>Like I said in the other post, I'll even pay shipping. Do want a ham
>to monitor the test and provide independent verification of the
>results? I'm sure that won't be a problem.
>
>So the -=ONLY=- way my test will cost you ANYTHING is if the antenna
>fails to perform according to the results of your test.

No Frank. You fudging the numbers to save face will cost me.

>Now is there anything about my proposal that you don't understand?

I understand A L the ramifications of you doing this test. I will take
no financial responsibility from some one I do not trust.

>Is there .....ANYONE..... in this newsgroup who doesn't understand
>what I just proposed?

They understand that your history is much more problematic than mine,
so if you really want to debunk me then take the bull by the horns and
buy the antennas.

>So what'll it be, tnom? Are you going to back up your test or continue
>to play stupid?

I've backed my tests by exposing them to a newsgroup and encouraging
others to do the same test. What have you done? Nothing.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:46:41 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote in
>:

<snip>
>>>>I've suggested reasons for the results, but admitted that I don't have
>>>>a definitive conclusion as to WHY the results were as is,nor do I have
>>>>to in order to post the results.
>>>
>>>
>>>What's the difference between that and peddling snake-oil?
>>
>>Because I admit that I am not sure of the reasons for the result but I
>>am sure of the result. I am not peddling anything other than the
>>truth. You don't have to buy it.
>
>
>So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
>did, correct?


I'll take your silence as a passive confirmation.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
>>would ever run a test.
>
>
>Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
>making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
>or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
>anticipated results

Well then you don't know the history behind me running the antenna
tests. Could it be that I wanted to debunk the X-terminator?

Guess what? I did want to debunk it, but I couldn't. Numbers don't
lie, just people. Sound familiar?

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:58:32 -0800, Jay in the Mojave
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> On 29 Jan 2006 05:21:39 -0800, "Professor"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>>>K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>>>Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
>>>5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
>>>6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
>>>108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>>>7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>>>
>>>So let me understand these readings you made... the DLX antenna was
>>>your baseline?
>>
>>
>> Yes. It was the lowest and became the reference
>
>Hello Tnom:
>
>Good going doing the testing. There are a lot of guys out there that do
>not test anything and just recite books. Usually the guys who write the
>books aren't the guys who design and test the antennas. And that testing
>data is held quiet in the companies files.
>
>I hear this recited stuff all the time. But theres no substitute for
>hands on testing and comparison testing.
>
>What was used for the field strength measuring device?

This test was done with an in sight very low power remote transmitter
located about 200 yards away. A regular CB was used with low
readings on the S-meter to give me a relative field strength. The
exact S numbers were noted. Then next step was to calibrate the
readings.

The db calculation were computed after taking the same CB and exciting
it with a variable power transmitter to see how the noted S-meter
readings related to power output of the variable transmitter.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>What was used for the field strength measuring device?
>
>
>And what was used to produce a constant tone, tnom?

On this particular test I used a Radio Shack 27 mhz remote control
car transmitter that was hooked to a oversized battery and left
running until it stabilized.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:12:13 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>I might get cooties if I deal with you. Buy your own antenna.
>>
>>
>>That's the plan, tnom -- or couldn't you understand what I wrote?
>>Here, I lay it out point by point:
>>
>>1. I buy the antenna.
>>2. I test the antenna.
>>
>>Still with me here? Good.....
>>
>>If the antenna meets or exceeds the performance of a Radio Shack 102"
>>SS whip then I post the results with an apology, end of story, exit
>>stage left, case closed.
>>
>>BUT....
>
> No but.
>
>>If the antenna -fails- then you buy the antenna for the price I paid.
>>Like I said in the other post, I'll even pay shipping. Do want a ham
>>to monitor the test and provide independent verification of the
>>results? I'm sure that won't be a problem.
>>
>>So the -=ONLY=- way my test will cost you ANYTHING is if the antenna
>>fails to perform according to the results of your test.
>
> No Frank. You fudging the numbers to save face will cost me.


Like I said, you can send a ham, or even a CBer friend, to monitor the
test and provide independent verification. In fact, I would -prefer-
that you send someone to monitor the test so you can't worm your way
out of the deal by claiming the numbers were fudged.


>>Now is there anything about my proposal that you don't understand?
>
>I understand A L the ramifications of you doing this test. I will take
>no financial responsibility from some one I do not trust.


Then contact someone around here that you -do- trust. Or can't you
find anyone that will lie on your behalf to save you a few bucks? How
about I do the test at the next local field day? I'm sure there will
be plenty of hams that would be eager and willing to see the results
of this test. Are you saying that you can't trust a group of hams that
have no other interest than to dispell RF voodoo?


>>Is there .....ANYONE..... in this newsgroup who doesn't understand
>>what I just proposed?
>
> They understand that your history is much more problematic than mine,
>so if you really want to debunk me then take the bull by the horns and
>buy the antennas.


Hmmmm..... I seem to recall that being part of the plan..... let's see
now, where was that listed in the plan.....

>>1. I buy the antenna.

Yep, that was part of the plan alright.


>>So what'll it be, tnom? Are you going to back up your test or continue
>>to play stupid?
>
>I've backed my tests by exposing them to a newsgroup and encouraging
>others to do the same test. What have you done? Nothing.


You typed some numbers on a keyboard and CLAIMED to have done a test.
Now you're playing stupid.

I'll go one step further: I'll buy the antenna and do the test, and if
the antenna performs according the results of your alleged test then
I'll send you the antenna for free -- AND $200 to boot. If it fails
then you just buy back the antenna. Is -that- a deal?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:46:17 GMT, wrote:

>> On 29 Jan 2006 05:21:39 -0800, "Professor"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>> >K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>> >Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
>> >5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
>> >6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
>> >108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>> >7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>> >
>> >So let me understand these readings you made... the DLX antenna was
>> >your baseline?
>>
>> Yes. It was the lowest and became the reference
>
>Uh Tnom, you can't make something a reference AFTER the
>test. That's not how you do a baseline.

What? You can reference anything you want. Antenna manufacturers do it
all the time. How do you think an Anrton gets its numbers?

Do you even know what a db is?

[tnom@mucks.net]

>> Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>> K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>> Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
>> 5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
>> 6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
>> 108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>> 7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>>
>> Of coarse since the time of this test I have found
>> and measured even better antennas. Of these the
>> practical ones all use large diameter masting made of
>> highly conductive material. A large diameter, air spaced
>> loading coil. This coil is always upwardly located and the
>> overall antenna height
>
>Damn Tnom, a 102 on a mag mount? You should be whipped. LOL

A homebrew triple magnet 750lbs magmount. Oops, I shouldn't have
mentioned it. Next thing you know Frank will want to borrow it.

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>with the whip ?
>>
>>
>>
>Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to
>bend back quite a bit
>when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got
>myself a quick connect
>and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This
>way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for
>transmission
>and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick
>disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and
>put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very
>pleased with it!!
>73
>
>Gen. J. O'Neill

Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
this bending. It is significant.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:18:21 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
>>>would ever run a test.
>>
>>
>>Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
>>making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
>>or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
>>anticipated results
>
>Well then you don't know the history behind me running the antenna
>tests. Could it be that I wanted to debunk the X-terminator?
>
>Guess what? I did want to debunk it, but I couldn't. Numbers don't
>lie, just people. Sound familiar?


Bad attempt at selective snipping, tnom. Here's the -whole- paragraph
as I wrote it:

>Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
>making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
>or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
>anticipated results -regardless- of what you stated as your reason for
>running the tests, which was most likely a lie intented to add a false
>legitimacy to the results. After all, why would you (or anyone else
>for that matter) buy an expensive antenna when you expected it to
>fail? That doesn't make any sense either, tnom.

Gee, why am I not suprised that you resort to deceptive tactics when
your test results are contested?

Do the right thing and accept the challenge, tnom.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:33:12 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>What was used for the field strength measuring device?
>>
>>
>>And what was used to produce a constant tone, tnom?
>
>On this particular test I used a Radio Shack 27 mhz remote control
>car transmitter that was hooked to a oversized battery and left
>running until it stabilized.


I thought you said you used an SSB radio with a constant tone? I also
seem to recall that your constant tone 'generator' was you whistling
into the mic. Am I wrong or do I need to go swimming in google juice?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:41:35 -0500, wrote in
>:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
> wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>>with the whip ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to
>>bend back quite a bit
>>when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got
>>myself a quick connect
>>and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This
>>way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for
>>transmission
>>and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick
>>disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and
>>put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very
>>pleased with it!!
>>73
>>
>>Gen. J. O'Neill
>
>Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
>Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
>this bending. It is significant.


Where are your test results showing a "significant" loss of gain with
a wind-bent antenna?









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
>>did, correct?
>
>
>I'll take your silence as a passive confirmation.

Oh, I have ideas but there is no way that I can make a complete
and definitive accounting of why the numbers are as is. I will not
even attempt to go that route. Going that route is like discussing
abortion. The only thing you'll get is an argument.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>You typed some numbers on a keyboard and CLAIMED to have done a test.
>Now you're playing stupid.
>
>I'll go one step further: I'll buy the antenna and do the test, and if
>the antenna performs according the results of your alleged test then
>I'll send you the antenna for free -- AND $200 to boot. If it fails
>then you just buy back the antenna. Is -that- a deal?

You are wasting your time. I want nothing to do with you or your
proposal.

What's the matter? Can't you afford to take a gamble?

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>>>You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
>>>>would ever run a test.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
>>>making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
>>>or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
>>>anticipated results
>>
>>Well then you don't know the history behind me running the antenna
>>tests. Could it be that I wanted to debunk the X-terminator?
>>
>>Guess what? I did want to debunk it, but I couldn't. Numbers don't
>>lie, just people. Sound familiar?
>
>
>Bad attempt at selective snipping, tnom. Here's the -whole- paragraph
>as I wrote it:
>
>>Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
>>making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
>>or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
>>anticipated results -regardless- of what you stated as your reason for
>>running the tests, which was most likely a lie intented to add a false
>>legitimacy to the results. After all, why would you (or anyone else
>>for that matter) buy an expensive antenna when you expected it to
>>fail? That doesn't make any sense either, tnom.
>
>Gee, why am I not suprised that you resort to deceptive tactics when
>your test results are contested?
>
>Do the right thing and accept the challenge, tnom.

The only thing of substance that was different was this

"After all, why would you (or anyone else
for that matter) buy an expensive antenna when you expected it to
fail? That doesn't make any sense either, tnom."

I guess I can answer that. It may be a waste of money for you but
it's pennies to me.

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:43:51 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:33:12 -0500, wrote in
>:
>
>>
>>>>What was used for the field strength measuring device?
>>>
>>>
>>>And what was used to produce a constant tone, tnom?
>>
>>On this particular test I used a Radio Shack 27 mhz remote control
>>car transmitter that was hooked to a oversized battery and left
>>running until it stabilized.
>
>
>I thought you said you used an SSB radio with a constant tone? I also
>seem to recall that your constant tone 'generator' was you whistling
>into the mic. Am I wrong or do I need to go swimming in google juice?
>
Not on the RS deluxe magmount test

[tnom@mucks.net]

O
>>Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
>>Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
>>this bending. It is significant.
>
>
>Where are your test results showing a "significant" loss of gain with
>a wind-bent antenna?

Don't even need a test on this one.

1. It can be mathematically calculated. ( I'll let you do that)

2. It looses gain bad enough that you can actually see it and
hear it. Example :

Two vehicles are traveling together down the expressway at 75mph.
One uses a K-40. The other a 102" whip. Both appear to have similar
maximum S-meter readings but the 102 " whips signal fades in and out
The K-40 does some fading but not nearly as deep as the 102".

[james]

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:42:48 -0500, wrote:

>+<On 24 Jan 2006 19:28:09 -0800, wrote:
>+<
>+<>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>+<>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>+<>with the whip ?
>+<
>+<Here's another antenna test post I dug out of the archives.
>+<
>+<********************************************
>+<
>+< I did this test a few years ago (minus the Wilson), at least as best
>+<I could. The problem is that when swapping the magmounts the
>+<position might change a little bit. If the position changes a little
>+<bit then the measured field strength may change a little bit also.
>+<Seeing how all of these antennas are very close to begin with
>+<then you have to wonder if the results may be off just a little bit?
>+<
>+<Anyway's, I did run the test and attempted to calibrate the results
>+<in db's . The calibration may be off a little bit, but the order from
>+<the best to the worst as I measured IS accurate.
>+<
>+<Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>+<K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>+<Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
>+<5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
>+<6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
>+<108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>+<7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>+<
>+<Of coarse since the time of this test I have found
>+<and measured even better antennas. Of these the
>+<practical ones all use large diameter masting made of
>+<highly conductive material. A large diameter, air spaced
>+<loading coil. This coil is always upwardly located and the
>+<overall antenna height
******
Were these antennae used as the transmitting or receiving antennae?
If transmitting antennae then what was the receiving antenna and
receiving equiptment. Second unknown is the path loss between the
transmiting antenna and the receiving antenna. Third item what was the
gain(dBi) of the receiving antenna. Without the above data, the above
results meaningless.

james

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:48:36 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
>>>did, correct?
>>
>>
>>I'll take your silence as a passive confirmation.
>
>Oh, I have ideas but there is no way that I can make a complete
>and definitive accounting of why the numbers are as is. I will not
>even attempt to go that route. Going that route is like discussing
>abortion. The only thing you'll get is an argument.


Abortion is simple. I could summarize the problem in about four or
five paragraphs, and the solution in one or two more. The antenna
argument is even simpler. I have offered a solution which rewards you
with a new antenna and $200 if what you say is true, but costs you
only a gas fillup (and your integrity) if you lied. You have flatly
rejected my offer. That, my friend, is a stronger argument than any EM
theory you could assemble into a coherent explanation.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:52:45 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>You typed some numbers on a keyboard and CLAIMED to have done a test.
>>Now you're playing stupid.
>>
>>I'll go one step further: I'll buy the antenna and do the test, and if
>>the antenna performs according the results of your alleged test then
>>I'll send you the antenna for free -- AND $200 to boot. If it fails
>>then you just buy back the antenna. Is -that- a deal?
>
> You are wasting your time. I want nothing to do with you or your
>proposal.
>
>What's the matter? Can't you afford to take a gamble?


There must be something wrong with Usenet..... for some reason I can't
seem to get the message through to tnom that I would be putting up the
antenna -and- $200..... hello?..... testing 1, 2, 3, 4,..... is this
darn thing working?









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:56:45 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>>>You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
>>>>>would ever run a test.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
>>>>making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
>>>>or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
>>>>anticipated results
>>>
>>>Well then you don't know the history behind me running the antenna
>>>tests. Could it be that I wanted to debunk the X-terminator?
>>>
>>>Guess what? I did want to debunk it, but I couldn't. Numbers don't
>>>lie, just people. Sound familiar?
>>
>>
>>Bad attempt at selective snipping, tnom. Here's the -whole- paragraph
>>as I wrote it:
>>
>>>Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
>>>making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
>>>or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
>>>anticipated results -regardless- of what you stated as your reason for
>>>running the tests, which was most likely a lie intented to add a false
>>>legitimacy to the results. After all, why would you (or anyone else
>>>for that matter) buy an expensive antenna when you expected it to
>>>fail? That doesn't make any sense either, tnom.
>>
>>Gee, why am I not suprised that you resort to deceptive tactics when
>>your test results are contested?
>>
>>Do the right thing and accept the challenge, tnom.
>
> The only thing of substance that was different was this
>
>"After all, why would you (or anyone else
>for that matter) buy an expensive antenna when you expected it to
>fail? That doesn't make any sense either, tnom."
>
>I guess I can answer that. It may be a waste of money for you but
>it's pennies to me.


Then it shouldn't be a problem to gamble mere pennies to have your
test verified independently. In fact, why don't you fly over and
monitor the test for yourself, Mr. Moneybags? Unless you live in
Timbuktu the lines will take longer than the flight. And just to make
it worthwhile I can provide a whole itinerary of places to go and
things to do while you're here. We have great skiing (49 Degrees North
has about 70" at the base and 120" at the summit with 15" of new snow
as of yesterday, and that's about the same for most of the resorts).
The falls are flowing pretty high right now too, and there's a
platform at the bottom where you can stand and feel the ground
literally shake beneath your feet while you get wet from the spray. We
have an Imax theater and huge ice-skating rink right in the middle of
Riverfront Park. And I know this great little blues club that serves
up some killer chicken wings. I also think there's a hamfest coming up
soon. And I still have friends at the station who will let me take you
on a tour so you can see what a -real- "driver" looks like. They might
even let you climb the tower to replace the lamps (if you don't mind a
little ice and bird ****).

So come on over, it'll be fun!!!







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:36:57 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:48:36 -0500, wrote in
>:
>
>>
>>>>So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
>>>>did, correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll take your silence as a passive confirmation.
>>
>>Oh, I have ideas but there is no way that I can make a complete
>>and definitive accounting of why the numbers are as is. I will not
>>even attempt to go that route. Going that route is like discussing
>>abortion. The only thing you'll get is an argument.
>
>
>Abortion is simple. I could summarize the problem in about four or
>five paragraphs, and the solution in one or two more.

Wow. You are truly a smart man. I nominate you for the next
professorship. Irwin Corey would be proud.

>The antenna
>argument is even simpler. I have offered a solution which rewards you
>with a new antenna and $200 if what you say is true, but costs you
>only a gas fillup (and your integrity) if you lied. You have flatly
>rejected my offer. That, my friend, is a stronger argument than any EM
>theory you could assemble into a coherent explanation.

You have offered nothing that would influence me to help you out.
If you want to see the numbers either believe me or do the test
completely independent of my help.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>> You are wasting your time. I want nothing to do with you or your
>>proposal.
>>
>>What's the matter? Can't you afford to take a gamble?
>
>
>There must be something wrong with Usenet..... for some reason I can't
>seem to get the message through to tnom that I would be putting up the
>antenna -and- $200..... hello?..... testing 1, 2, 3, 4,..... is this
>darn thing working?

What doesn't make sense. You putting up $200 for a $50 antenna?

I agree. You don't make sense.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:11:34 -0500, wrote in
>:

>O
>>>Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
>>>Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
>>>this bending. It is significant.
>>
>>
>>Where are your test results showing a "significant" loss of gain with
>>a wind-bent antenna?
>
> Don't even need a test on this one.


In your own words:

"If you really wanted to prove it you'd run the test. You don't
because it would upset your thinking on antennas."

"A test is better than no test."


>1. It can be mathematically calculated. ( I'll let you do that)


"I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
as to why it didn't perform."


>2. It looses gain bad enough that you can actually see it and
> hear it. Example :
>
>Two vehicles are traveling together down the expressway at 75mph.
>One uses a K-40. The other a 102" whip. Both appear to have similar
>maximum S-meter readings but the 102 " whips signal fades in and out
>The K-40 does some fading but not nearly as deep as the 102".


"All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
facts. Run the test and stop posturing."

But I think this one is closer to the truth:

"You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just
conjecture."






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>+<Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>>+<K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>>+<Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
>>+<5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
>>+<6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
>>+<108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>>+<7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db

>Were these antennae used as the transmitting or receiving antennae?
>If transmitting antennae then what was the receiving antenna and
>receiving equiptment. Second unknown is the path loss between the
>transmiting antenna and the receiving antenna. Third item what was the
>gain(dBi) of the receiving antenna. Without the above data, the above
>results meaningless.

Who's talking dbi ? I'm not. The reference was the RS deluxe mag
mount. Referenced at 0db

As I explained. The order of best to worst is accurate. Calibrating
the results into db is as explained below. Meaningless? I don't think
so.

This test was done with an in sight very low power remote transmitter
located about 200 yards away. A regular CB was used with low
readings on the S-meter to give me a relative field strength. The
exact S numbers were noted. Then next step was to calibrate the
readings.

The db calculation were computed after taking the same CB and exciting
it with a variable power transmitter to see how the noted S-meter
readings related to power output of the variable transmitter.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:59:12 -0500, wrote in
>:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:36:57 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:48:36 -0500, wrote in
>:
>>
>>>
>>>>>So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
>>>>>did, correct?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'll take your silence as a passive confirmation.
>>>
>>>Oh, I have ideas but there is no way that I can make a complete
>>>and definitive accounting of why the numbers are as is. I will not
>>>even attempt to go that route. Going that route is like discussing
>>>abortion. The only thing you'll get is an argument.
>>
>>
>>Abortion is simple. I could summarize the problem in about four or
>>five paragraphs, and the solution in one or two more.
>
> Wow. You are truly a smart man.


Yes I am.


> I nominate you for the next
>professorship. Irwin Corey would be proud.


Nobody cares.


>>The antenna
>>argument is even simpler. I have offered a solution which rewards you
>>with a new antenna and $200 if what you say is true, but costs you
>>only a gas fillup (and your integrity) if you lied. You have flatly
>>rejected my offer. That, my friend, is a stronger argument than any EM
>>theory you could assemble into a coherent explanation.
>
>You have offered nothing that would influence me to help you out.
>If you want to see the numbers either believe me or do the test
>completely independent of my help.


I'm not asking for your help at all, tnom. I'm trying to see how much
confidence, if any, you have in your test results. So far you haven't
been able to demonstrate any confidence whatsoever.









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:01:32 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>> You are wasting your time. I want nothing to do with you or your
>>>proposal.
>>>
>>>What's the matter? Can't you afford to take a gamble?
>>
>>
>>There must be something wrong with Usenet..... for some reason I can't
>>seem to get the message through to tnom that I would be putting up the
>>antenna -and- $200..... hello?..... testing 1, 2, 3, 4,..... is this
>>darn thing working?
>
>What doesn't make sense. You putting up $200 for a $50 antenna?
>
>I agree. You don't make sense.


What doesn't make sense is you -refusing- $200 and a free antenna. If
your test results are valid then that's what you get. But since I
don't believe you ran a valid test, and you keep pushing people to buy
the antenna and test it for themselves, it only seems right that you
should have some sort of stake in this test. Since the antenna costs
you only pennies then just how much of a risk is it to you, tnom?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

Just to make it absolutely clear:

- I buy the antenna.

- You can monitor the test yourself, or send as many representatives
as you like -- the more the merrier.

- If the antenna works like you say then you get the antenna, $200, a
public apology, and I'll leave the newsgroup forever.

- If it doesn't then you buy the antenna for "pennies".


Well?









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:33:38 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:

>Just to make it absolutely clear:
>
>- I buy the antenna.
>
>- You can monitor the test yourself, or send as many representatives
>as you like -- the more the merrier.
>
>- If the antenna works like you say then you get the antenna, $200, a
>public apology, and I'll leave the newsgroup forever.
>
>- If it doesn't then you buy the antenna for "pennies".
>
>
>Well?

I expect you to do the test without any help from me.

I also expect you to have an independent trusted representative
confirm the validity of the test as YOU suggested.

Anything short of that is worthless as is your offer.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>You have offered nothing that would influence me to help you out.
>>If you want to see the numbers either believe me or do the test
>>completely independent of my help.
>
>
>I'm not asking for your help at all, tnom. I'm trying to see how much
>confidence, if any, you have in your test results. So far you haven't
>been able to demonstrate any confidence whatsoever.

It has nothing to do with me not being confident in the results. It
has to do with me not being confident in any of your assertions of
a fair test. You have long ago lost my trust. Why should I start to
trust you now?

Don't bother answering! I can't trust your answer anyway.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>> Don't even need a test on this one.


>>2. It looses gain bad enough that you can actually see it and
>> hear it. Example :
>>
>>Two vehicles are traveling together down the expressway at 75mph.
>>One uses a K-40. The other a 102" whip. Both appear to have similar
>>maximum S-meter readings but the 102 " whips signal fades in and out
>>The K-40 does some fading but not nearly as deep as the 102".
>
>
>"All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
>facts. Run the test and stop posturing."
>
>But I think this one is closer to the truth:
>
>"You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just
>conjecture."

I'll repeat. No test is necessary in my mind. I have seen the above
scenario more than once. If you don't believe it then you test it.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>I guess I can answer that. It may be a waste of money for you but
>>it's pennies to me.
>
>
>Then it shouldn't be a problem to gamble mere pennies to have your
>test verified independently. In fact, why don't you fly over and
>monitor the test for yourself, Mr. Moneybags? Unless you live in
>Timbuktu the lines will take longer than the flight. And just to make
>it worthwhile I can provide a whole itinerary of places to go and
>things to do while you're here. We have great skiing (49 Degrees North
>has about 70" at the base and 120" at the summit with 15" of new snow
>as of yesterday, and that's about the same for most of the resorts).
>The falls are flowing pretty high right now too, and there's a
>platform at the bottom where you can stand and feel the ground
>literally shake beneath your feet while you get wet from the spray. We
>have an Imax theater and huge ice-skating rink right in the middle of
>Riverfront Park. And I know this great little blues club that serves
>up some killer chicken wings. I also think there's a hamfest coming up
>soon. And I still have friends at the station who will let me take you
>on a tour so you can see what a -real- "driver" looks like. They might
>even let you climb the tower to replace the lamps (if you don't mind a
>little ice and bird ****).
>
>So come on over, it'll be fun!!!

I don't gamble and you have cooties anyway. Seeing how you can't
afford this antenna why don't you use your self proclaimed expertise
and make an appropriate substitute. Or maybe you can borrow one from
one of your friends at the truck stop. You do have friends don't you?

[tnom@mucks.net]

>What doesn't make sense is you -refusing- $200 and a free antenna. If
>your test results are valid then that's what you get. But since I
>don't believe you ran a valid test, and you keep pushing people to buy
>the antenna and test it for themselves, it only seems right that you
>should have some sort of stake in this test. Since the antenna costs
>you only pennies then just how much of a risk is it to you, tnom?

Seeing how my original intention was to show that the X-Terminator
was an under performer * I find it hard to believe that I fudged the
numbers so that the outcome would dispute my own statements of it
being an under performer.

* (You can research my posts on this manner that occurred before I
ever ran the test, don't ask me to do it for you)

[Jack O'Neill]

wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:58:32 -0800, Jay in the Mojave
> wrote:
>
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 29 Jan 2006 05:21:39 -0800, "Professor"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>>>>K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>>>>Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
>>>>5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
>>>>6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
>>>>108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>>>>7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>>>>
>>>>So let me understand these readings you made... the DLX antenna was
>>>>your baseline?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Yes. It was the lowest and became the reference
>>>
>>>
>>Hello Tnom:
>>
>>Good going doing the testing. There are a lot of guys out there that do
>>not test anything and just recite books. Usually the guys who write the
>>books aren't the guys who design and test the antennas. And that testing
>>data is held quiet in the companies files.
>>
>>I hear this recited stuff all the time. But theres no substitute for
>>hands on testing and comparison testing.
>>
>>What was used for the field strength measuring device?
>>
>>
>
>This test was done with an in sight very low power remote transmitter
>located about 200 yards away. A regular CB was used with low
>readings on the S-meter to give me a relative field strength. The
>exact S numbers were noted. Then next step was to calibrate the
>readings.
>
>The db calculation were computed after taking the same CB and exciting
>it with a variable power transmitter to see how the noted S-meter
>readings related to power output of the variable transmitter.
>
>
>
K40, 8db gain? wow! bologna

[Jack O'Neill]

wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
> wrote:
>
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>>with the whip ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to
>>bend back quite a bit
>>when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got
>>myself a quick connect
>>and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This
>>way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for
>>transmission
>>and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick
>>disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and
>>put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very
>>pleased with it!!
>>73
>>
>>Gen. J. O'Neill
>>
>>
>
>Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
>Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
>this bending. It is significant.
>
>
Thats why you don't use a spring. Also, remember, antenna height is
most of this hobby as far as how
good you get out. A 102 inch whip is pretty high. Best for transmit
and receive!
73

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>>>>Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>>>>>K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>>>>>Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
>>>>>5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
>>>>>6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
>>>>>108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>>>>>7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db

>K40, 8db gain? wow! bologna

Get some glasses.



I bet you didn't realize that the K-40 actually has
* more than 60db gain

* (referenced to a dummy load)

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
>>Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
>>this bending. It is significant.
>>
>>
>Thats why you don't use a spring. Also, remember, antenna height is
>most of this hobby as far as how
>good you get out. A 102 inch whip is pretty high. Best for transmit
>and receive!
>73

It's good. It's just not the best.

[Jack O'Neill]

Jack O'Neill wrote:

> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>>>with the whip ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to
>>>bend back quite a bit
>>>when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got
>>>myself a quick connect
>>>and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This
>>>way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for
>>>transmission
>>>and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick
>>>disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and
>>>put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very
>>>pleased with it!!
>>>73
>>>
>>>Gen. J. O'Neill
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
>>Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
>>this bending. It is significant.
>>
>>
> Thats why you don't use a spring. Also, remember, antenna height is
> most of this hobby as far as how
> good you get out. A 102 inch whip is pretty high. Best for transmit
> and receive!
> 73

Oh, forgot to say when I used my 102 inch whip I mounted it with a tilt
towards the front of the car slightly.
This way at 60 MPH it would stay pretty much vertical.

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:22:23 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>You have offered nothing that would influence me to help you out.
>>>If you want to see the numbers either believe me or do the test
>>>completely independent of my help.
>>
>>
>>I'm not asking for your help at all, tnom. I'm trying to see how much
>>confidence, if any, you have in your test results. So far you haven't
>>been able to demonstrate any confidence whatsoever.
>
>It has nothing to do with me not being confident in the results. It
>has to do with me not being confident in any of your assertions of
>a fair test. You have long ago lost my trust. Why should I start to
>trust you now?
>
>Don't bother answering! I can't trust your answer anyway.


That's why I offered, many times, to have others present to monitor
the test. Or didn't you read it the first six times I wrote it?








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Volker Tonn]

Jack O'Neill schrieb:

> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:58:32 -0800, Jay in the Mojave
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 29 Jan 2006 05:21:39 -0800, "Professor"
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>>>>>K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>>>>>
>>>>>
.....

> K40, 8db gain? wow! bologna


Take your glasses and read again!

K-40 .8db

Just type "'point' 8" into your calculator and look what happens..... :-)

[Jack O'Neill]

Volker Tonn wrote:

> Jack O'Neill schrieb:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:58:32 -0800, Jay in the Mojave
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Jan 2006 05:21:39 -0800, "Professor"
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>>>>>> K-40 .................................................. .......
>>>>>> .8db
>>>>>>
>>>>>
> ....
>
>> K40, 8db gain? wow! bologna
>
>
>
> Take your glasses and read again!
>
> K-40 .8db
>
> Just type "'point' 8" into your calculator and look what happens.....
> :-)
>
>
OH, .8, GOT IT!!! my goof. Thats better!! ;-)

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:46:56 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>What doesn't make sense is you -refusing- $200 and a free antenna. If
>>your test results are valid then that's what you get. But since I
>>don't believe you ran a valid test, and you keep pushing people to buy
>>the antenna and test it for themselves, it only seems right that you
>>should have some sort of stake in this test. Since the antenna costs
>>you only pennies then just how much of a risk is it to you, tnom?
>
>Seeing how my original intention was to show that the X-Terminator
>was an under performer * I find it hard to believe that I fudged the
>numbers so that the outcome would dispute my own statements of it
>being an under performer.
>
>* (You can research my posts on this manner that occurred before I
>ever ran the test, don't ask me to do it for you)


I know exactly what you wrote as your intended purpose of the test.
You've said it many, many times, and unlike you, I can read and
understand something the -first- time.

What you -still- can't understand is that I believe your claim (as to
your original intent) to be a lie. Regardless, my intent is to do the
same; if my results are the same as yours, wouldn't that be a huge
endorsement not just for the antenna, but also for your credibility?
If your results were valid then what do you have to lose?







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:37:41 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>>I guess I can answer that. It may be a waste of money for you but
>>>it's pennies to me.
>>
>>
>>Then it shouldn't be a problem to gamble mere pennies to have your
>>test verified independently. In fact, why don't you fly over and
>>monitor the test for yourself, Mr. Moneybags? Unless you live in
>>Timbuktu the lines will take longer than the flight. And just to make
>>it worthwhile I can provide a whole itinerary of places to go and
>>things to do while you're here. We have great skiing (49 Degrees North
>>has about 70" at the base and 120" at the summit with 15" of new snow
>>as of yesterday, and that's about the same for most of the resorts).
>>The falls are flowing pretty high right now too, and there's a
>>platform at the bottom where you can stand and feel the ground
>>literally shake beneath your feet while you get wet from the spray. We
>>have an Imax theater and huge ice-skating rink right in the middle of
>>Riverfront Park. And I know this great little blues club that serves
>>up some killer chicken wings. I also think there's a hamfest coming up
>>soon. And I still have friends at the station who will let me take you
>>on a tour so you can see what a -real- "driver" looks like. They might
>>even let you climb the tower to replace the lamps (if you don't mind a
>>little ice and bird ****).
>>
>>So come on over, it'll be fun!!!
>
>I don't gamble and you have cooties anyway. Seeing how you can't
>afford this antenna why don't you use your self proclaimed expertise
>and make an appropriate substitute. Or maybe you can borrow one from
>one of your friends at the truck stop. You do have friends don't you?


Nope. No friends at all, tnom. Never did, never will.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:27:19 -0500, wrote in
>:

>
>>> Don't even need a test on this one.
>
>
>>>2. It looses gain bad enough that you can actually see it and
>>> hear it. Example :
>>>
>>>Two vehicles are traveling together down the expressway at 75mph.
>>>One uses a K-40. The other a 102" whip. Both appear to have similar
>>>maximum S-meter readings but the 102 " whips signal fades in and out
>>>The K-40 does some fading but not nearly as deep as the 102".
>>
>>
>>"All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
>>facts. Run the test and stop posturing."
>>
>>But I think this one is closer to the truth:
>>
>>"You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just
>>conjecture."
>
>I'll repeat. No test is necessary in my mind. I have seen the above
>scenario more than once. If you don't believe it then you test it.


In your mind is exactly where -all- your tests take place.









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:17:09 -0500, wrote in
>:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:33:38 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:
>
>>Just to make it absolutely clear:
>>
>>- I buy the antenna.
>>
>>- You can monitor the test yourself, or send as many representatives
>>as you like -- the more the merrier.
>>
>>- If the antenna works like you say then you get the antenna, $200, a
>>public apology, and I'll leave the newsgroup forever.
>>
>>- If it doesn't then you buy the antenna for "pennies".
>>
>>
>>Well?
>
>I expect you to do the test without any help from me.
>
>I also expect you to have an independent trusted representative
>confirm the validity of the test as YOU suggested.
>
>Anything short of that is worthless as is your offer.


I expect -you- to back up your claims. Your tests were contradictory
in their data. Your data is unconfirmed as to its validity. Your
conclusions exclude the very real possibility of error or unknown
variables. You refuse to back up your conclusions with theoretical
constructs or additional tests. And you stick to your guns as if your
word was the Holy Gospel.

Yet when confronted with a challenge to your test, a challenge where
you risk absolutely nothing (don't forget that you would get the
antenna for your $25), with an objective and independently verified
test, what you you do? You sit in the corner, pee on yourself and
whine like Steve Robeson having his period.

Congratulations, tnom -- you just discredited both yourself -AND- the
antenna you are trying to get people to buy.


BTW, the offer still stands.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Volker Tonn]

Scott in Baltimore schrieb:

>>> 108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>>> 7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>>
>
>
> I still think my KW-7 kicks butt! I talk skip on AM and SSB using
> a small 2 pill on low.

This is somewhat irrelevant.
The test was made to show gain on zero degree radiation angle.
For CB-skip radiation angle mostly is between 10 and 20 degrees.

This test will not neccessarely show the maximum over all gain.
But the low radiation comparison is good for people who want to talk to
other's in the same area whilst driving.

Only one thing is missing:

There is no comparison on different heights of mounting.
I bet there are some relevant -not really big- differences on some
antennas mounted on 4ft, 8ft or 13ft height (car/ van/ truck).

BTW: I've never seen a 108 ft stainless steel whip... ;-)

odo -from germany-

[Jack O'Neill]

Volker Tonn wrote:

> Scott in Baltimore schrieb:
>
>>>> 108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>>>> 7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I still think my KW-7 kicks butt! I talk skip on AM and SSB using
>> a small 2 pill on low.
>
>
Got news for you. Skip can be "talked" with as little as 10 MILLI watts!!
Granted, you need a good antenna and all the patience in the world for this
kind of power level, but it is done. The hams call it "QRP"

[Volker Tonn]

Jack O'Neill schrieb:

> Volker Tonn wrote:
>
>> Scott in Baltimore schrieb:
>>
>>>>> 108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>>>>> 7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I still think my KW-7 kicks butt! I talk skip on AM and SSB using
>>> a small 2 pill on low.
>>
>>
> Got news for you. Skip can be "talked" with as little as 10 MILLI watts!!
> Granted, you need a good antenna and all the patience in the world for
> this
> kind of power level, but it is done. The hams call it "QRP"


You wanted to answer Scott?
***I*** do know that.... ....when conditions are good....

[Frank Gilliland]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:26:51 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote in
>:

<snip>
>BTW, the offer still stands.


On second thought, no it doesn't. After seeing how low the price has
dropped for this super-duper stick that allegedly performs better than
a 102" whip, I'm convinced that your tests were bogus and that you
falsified the data/results for whatever reason. I don't know that
reason but I'll bet it has something to do with money. Maybe you own
stock in the company, or you're the dope in the shop that builds these
things -- don't know, don't care, and it don't matter cause you and
your antenna are worthless.

Now go get a -real- job and quit selling snake oil on the internet.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[tnom@mucks.net]

><snip>
>>BTW, the offer still stands.
>
>
>On second thought, no it doesn't. After seeing how low the price has
>dropped for this super-duper stick that allegedly performs better than
>a 102" whip, I'm convinced that your tests were bogus and that you
>falsified the data/results for whatever reason. I don't know that
>reason but I'll bet it has something to do with money. Maybe you own
>stock in the company, or you're the dope in the shop that builds these
>things -- don't know, don't care, and it don't matter cause you and
>your antenna are worthless.
>
>Now go get a -real- job and quit selling snake oil on the internet.

That's ok Frank. You have the right to think what you want.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>
>>I expect you to do the test without any help from me.
>>
>>I also expect you to have an independent trusted representative
>>confirm the validity of the test as YOU suggested.
>>
>>Anything short of that is worthless as is your offer.
>
>
>I expect -you- to back up your claims. Your tests were contradictory
>in their data. Your data is unconfirmed as to its validity. Your
>conclusions exclude the very real possibility of error or unknown
>variables. You refuse to back up your conclusions with theoretical
>constructs or additional tests. And you stick to your guns as if your
>word was the Holy Gospel.
>
>Yet when confronted with a challenge to your test, a challenge where
>you risk absolutely nothing (don't forget that you would get the
>antenna for your $25), with an objective and independently verified
>test, what you you do? You sit in the corner, pee on yourself and
>whine like Steve Robeson having his period.
>
>Congratulations, tnom -- you just discredited both yourself -AND- the
>antenna you are trying to get people to buy.
>
>
>BTW, the offer still stands.

I expect you to try and debunk my results.

[tnom@mucks.net]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:03:04 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:22:23 -0500, wrote in
>:
>
>>
>>>>You have offered nothing that would influence me to help you out.
>>>>If you want to see the numbers either believe me or do the test
>>>>completely independent of my help.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not asking for your help at all, tnom. I'm trying to see how much
>>>confidence, if any, you have in your test results. So far you haven't
>>>been able to demonstrate any confidence whatsoever.
>>
>>It has nothing to do with me not being confident in the results. It
>>has to do with me not being confident in any of your assertions of
>>a fair test. You have long ago lost my trust. Why should I start to
>>trust you now?
>>
>>Don't bother answering! I can't trust your answer anyway.
>
>
>That's why I offered, many times, to have others present to monitor
>the test. Or didn't you read it the first six times I wrote it?

Then the only thing left to do is buy the antenna. Get on with it.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>>What doesn't make sense is you -refusing- $200 and a free antenna. If
>>>your test results are valid then that's what you get. But since I
>>>don't believe you ran a valid test, and you keep pushing people to buy
>>>the antenna and test it for themselves, it only seems right that you
>>>should have some sort of stake in this test. Since the antenna costs
>>>you only pennies then just how much of a risk is it to you, tnom?
>>
>>Seeing how my original intention was to show that the X-Terminator
>>was an under performer * I find it hard to believe that I fudged the
>>numbers so that the outcome would dispute my own statements of it
>>being an under performer.
>>
>>* (You can research my posts on this manner that occurred before I
>>ever ran the test, don't ask me to do it for you)
>
>
>I know exactly what you wrote as your intended purpose of the test.
>You've said it many, many times, and unlike you, I can read and
>understand something the -first- time.
>
>What you -still- can't understand is that I believe your claim (as to
>your original intent) to be a lie. Regardless, my intent is to do the
>same; if my results are the same as yours, wouldn't that be a huge
>endorsement not just for the antenna, but also for your credibility?
>If your results were valid then what do you have to lose?

Believe what you want to believe. I don't need your endorsement.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>>>I guess I can answer that. It may be a waste of money for you but
>>>>it's pennies to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>Then it shouldn't be a problem to gamble mere pennies to have your
>>>test verified independently. In fact, why don't you fly over and
>>>monitor the test for yourself, Mr. Moneybags? Unless you live in
>>>Timbuktu the lines will take longer than the flight. And just to make
>>>it worthwhile I can provide a whole itinerary of places to go and
>>>things to do while you're here. We have great skiing (49 Degrees North
>>>has about 70" at the base and 120" at the summit with 15" of new snow
>>>as of yesterday, and that's about the same for most of the resorts).
>>>The falls are flowing pretty high right now too, and there's a
>>>platform at the bottom where you can stand and feel the ground
>>>literally shake beneath your feet while you get wet from the spray. We
>>>have an Imax theater and huge ice-skating rink right in the middle of
>>>Riverfront Park. And I know this great little blues club that serves
>>>up some killer chicken wings. I also think there's a hamfest coming up
>>>soon. And I still have friends at the station who will let me take you
>>>on a tour so you can see what a -real- "driver" looks like. They might
>>>even let you climb the tower to replace the lamps (if you don't mind a
>>>little ice and bird ****).
>>>
>>>So come on over, it'll be fun!!!
>>
>>I don't gamble and you have cooties anyway. Seeing how you can't
>>afford this antenna why don't you use your self proclaimed expertise
>>and make an appropriate substitute. Or maybe you can borrow one from
>>one of your friends at the truck stop. You do have friends don't you?
>
>
>Nope. No friends at all, tnom. Never did, never will.

Well, I can see why.

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>I'll repeat. No test is necessary in my mind. I have seen the above
>>scenario more than once. If you don't believe it then you test it.
>
>
>In your mind is exactly where -all- your tests take place.

So was the picture I posted of the antennas?

[Steveo]

Jack O'Neill > wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------040301040402070807080502
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Gen. J. O'Neill
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <pre wrap=""><!---->
> </pre>
> </blockquote>
> <font size="+1"><font face="Arial">> 73<br>
> </font></font>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> --------------040301040402070807080502--
>
YIKES!

[james]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:08:24 -0500, wrote:

>+<
>+<>>+<Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>+<>>+<K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>+<>>+<Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
>+<>>+<5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
>+<>>+<6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
>+<>>+<108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>+<>>+<7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>+<
>+<>Were these antennae used as the transmitting or receiving antennae?
>+<>If transmitting antennae then what was the receiving antenna and
>+<>receiving equiptment. Second unknown is the path loss between the
>+<>transmiting antenna and the receiving antenna. Third item what was the
>+<>gain(dBi) of the receiving antenna. Without the above data, the above
>+<>results meaningless.
>+<
>+<Who's talking dbi ? I'm not. The reference was the RS deluxe mag
>+<mount. Referenced at 0db
>+<
>+<As I explained. The order of best to worst is accurate. Calibrating
>+<the results into db is as explained below. Meaningless? I don't think
>+<so.
>+<
>+<This test was done with an in sight very low power remote transmitter
>+<located about 200 yards away. A regular CB was used with low
>+<readings on the S-meter to give me a relative field strength. The
>+<exact S numbers were noted. Then next step was to calibrate the
>+<readings.
>+<
>+<The db calculation were computed after taking the same CB and exciting
>+<it with a variable power transmitter to see how the noted S-meter
>+<readings related to power output of the variable transmitter.
*******

Sorry I put little faith in S-meter readings. I would prefer a
spectrum analyzer, a preamp and the test antenna to determine gain of
the antenna.

james

[tnom@mucks.net]

>>+<The db calculation were computed after taking the same CB and exciting
>>+<it with a variable power transmitter to see how the noted S-meter
>>+<readings related to power output of the variable transmitter.
>*******
>
>Sorry I put little faith in S-meter readings. I would prefer a
>spectrum analyzer, a preamp and the test antenna to determine gain of
>the antenna.

I'd prefer a Maserati

[DrDeath]

"Steveo" > wrote in message
...
wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
> wrote:
>
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>>with the whip ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to
>>bend back quite a bit
>>when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got
>>myself a quick connect
>>and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This
>>way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for
>>transmission
>>and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick
>>disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and
>>put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very
>>pleased with it!!
>>73
>>
>>Gen. J. O'Neill
>>
>>
>
>Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
>Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
>this bending. It is significant.
>
>
That's why you don't use a spring. Also, remember, antenna height is
most of this hobby as far as how
good you get out. A 102 inch whip is pretty high. Best for transmit
and receive!
73


Does that help ya: )

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
> O
>>>Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
>>>Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
>>>this bending. It is significant.
>>
>>
>>Where are your test results showing a "significant" loss of gain with
>>a wind-bent antenna?
>
> Don't even need a test on this one.
>
> 1. It can be mathematically calculated. ( I'll let you do that)
>
> 2. It looses gain bad enough that you can actually see it and
> hear it. Example :
>
> Two vehicles are traveling together down the expressway at 75mph.
> One uses a K-40. The other a 102" whip. Both appear to have similar
> maximum S-meter readings but the 102 " whips signal fades in and out
> The K-40 does some fading but not nearly as deep as the 102".

Never had that problem unless I was shooting skip.

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
> > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>>with the whip ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to
>>bend back quite a bit
>>when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got
>>myself a quick connect
>>and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This
>>way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for
>>transmission
>>and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick
>>disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and
>>put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very
>>pleased with it!!
>>73
>>
>>Gen. J. O'Neill
>
> Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
> Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
> this bending. It is significant.

Without the spring a good (not RS) 102" won't bend that much to make a
difference. I've always had one on my trucks over the years. We did have a
freezing rain storm a few years back, going 55 to 60mph the ice formation
had it bent pretty good.

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
>
>>> Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
>>> K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
>>> Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
>>> 5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
>>> 6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
>>> 108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>>> 7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
>>>
>>> Of coarse since the time of this test I have found
>>> and measured even better antennas. Of these the
>>> practical ones all use large diameter masting made of
>>> highly conductive material. A large diameter, air spaced
>>> loading coil. This coil is always upwardly located and the
>>> overall antenna height
>>
>>Damn Tnom, a 102 on a mag mount? You should be whipped. LOL
>
> A homebrew triple magnet 750lbs magmount. Oops, I shouldn't have
> mentioned it. Next thing you know Frank will want to borrow it.

ROFLMAO

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
>
>>Is there .....ANYONE..... in this newsgroup who doesn't understand
>>what I just proposed?
>
> They understand that your history is much more
> problematic than mine,


That's an understatement! LOL

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
(snipped)
>You have long ago lost my trust. Why should I start to
> trust you now?
>
> Don't bother answering! I can't trust your answer anyway.

I was hoping this would come to an end as I have Frank on my killfile list
and I still have to read his bull****. Unfortunately I have to swallow my
pride and agree with Frank, the 102" is king hands down. But if it makes you
feel better Frank tends to either lie to prove his point or he simply has no
clue when it comes to RF theory. He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a
cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try
anything to get the bull**** started.

[Jack O'Neill]

Volker Tonn wrote:

> Jack O'Neill schrieb:
>
>> Volker Tonn wrote:
>>
>>> Scott in Baltimore schrieb:
>>>
>>>>>> 108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
>>>>>> 7' Firestik .................................................. .
>>>>>> 5db
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I still think my KW-7 kicks butt! I talk skip on AM and SSB using
>>>> a small 2 pill on low.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Got news for you. Skip can be "talked" with as little as 10 MILLI
>> watts!!
>> Granted, you need a good antenna and all the patience in the world
>> for this
>> kind of power level, but it is done. The hams call it "QRP"
>
>
>
> You wanted to answer Scott?
> ***I*** do know that.... ....when conditions are good....
>
yep.........oops

[Jack O'Neill]

Steveo wrote:

>Jack O'Neill > wrote:
>
>
>>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>>--------------040301040402070807080502
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>
>>Gen. J. O'Neill
>> </pre>
>> </blockquote>
>> <pre wrap=""><!---->
>> </pre>
>></blockquote>
>><font size="+1"><font face="Arial">> 73<br>
>></font></font>
>></body>
>></html>
>>
>>--------------040301040402070807080502--
>>
>>
>>
>YIKES!
>
>
yea, whats up with that??

[Jack O'Neill]

I remember back yonder in the late 1960s, early 70s.
I took an 8 foot florescent lamp and keyed up my radio and the 100 watt amp
and locked it in transmit. Then I took the 8 foot lamp and held it
next to
my 102 inch whip. The lamp lit up full brightness. I was able to walk
around 4 or 5 feet away from the
antenna before the lamp would go out. It was pretty cool at night to
see this 8 foot fluorescent bulb lit up
and I being tossed it around. People on the road stopped to find out
what the hell was going on!!!
Amazing what a bit of RF can do!!

Gen, J. O'Neill

[Jack O'Neill]

I remember back yonder in the late 1960s, early 70s.
I took an 8 foot florescent lamp and keyed up my radio and the 100 watt amp
and locked it in transmit. Then I took the 8 foot lamp and held it
next to
my 102 inch whip. The lamp lit up full brightness. I was able to walk
around 4 or 5 feet away from the
antenna before the lamp would go out. It was pretty cool at night to
see this 8 foot fluorescent lamp lit up
as I twirled it around. People on the road stopped to find out what the
hell was going on!!!
Amazing what a bit of RF can do!!

Gen, J. O'Neill

[DrDeath]

"Jack O'Neill" > wrote in message
...
>I remember back yonder in the late 1960s, early 70s.
> I took an 8 foot florescent lamp and keyed up my radio and the 100 watt
> amp
> and locked it in transmit. Then I took the 8 foot lamp and held it next
> to
> my 102 inch whip. The lamp lit up full brightness. I was able to walk
> around 4 or 5 feet away from the
> antenna before the lamp would go out. It was pretty cool at night to see
> this 8 foot fluorescent bulb lit up
> and I being tossed it around. People on the road stopped to find out what
> the hell was going on!!! Amazing what a bit of RF can do!!
>
> Gen, J. O'Neill

Yeah, been there and done that. Fluorescent blacklight was more impressive.

[Volker Tonn]

Jack O'Neill schrieb:

>>>
>>> kind of power level, but it is done. The hams call it "QRP"
>>
>>
>>
>> You wanted to answer Scott?
>> ***I*** do know that.... ....when conditions are good....
>>
> yep.........oops

And -of course- hams call it QRPP :-)

regards

[Smooth B]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:20:30 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:26:51 -0800, Frank Gilliland
> wrote in
>:
>
><snip>
>>BTW, the offer still stands.
>
>
>On second thought, no it doesn't. After seeing how low the price has
>dropped for this super-duper stick that allegedly performs better than
>a 102" whip, I'm convinced that your tests were bogus and that you
>falsified the data/results for whatever reason. I don't know that
>reason but I'll bet it has something to do with money. Maybe you own
>stock in the company, or you're the dope in the shop that builds these
>things -- don't know, don't care, and it don't matter cause you and
>your antenna are worthless.
>
>Now go get a -real- job and quit selling snake oil on the internet.

Where can I take a look at this antenna???

[U-Know-Who]

"DrDeath" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
>> > wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>>>with the whip ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to
>>>bend back quite a bit
>>>when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got
>>>myself a quick connect
>>>and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This
>>>way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for
>>>transmission
>>>and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick
>>>disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and
>>>put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very
>>>pleased with it!!
>>>73
>>>
>>>Gen. J. O'Neill
>>
>> Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
>> Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
>> this bending. It is significant.
>
> Without the spring a good (not RS) 102" won't bend that much to make a
> difference. I've always had one on my trucks over the years. We did have a
> freezing rain storm a few years back, going 55 to 60mph the ice formation
> had it bent pretty good.
>

Is it just me, or does 55-60 MPH seem a little fast for an ice storm? I must
be getting old....

[Jack O'Neill]

U-Know-Who wrote:

>"DrDeath" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>>>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>>>>with the whip ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to
>>>>bend back quite a bit
>>>>when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got
>>>>myself a quick connect
>>>>and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This
>>>>way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for
>>>>transmission
>>>>and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick
>>>>disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and
>>>>put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very
>>>>pleased with it!!
>>>>73
>>>>
>>>>Gen. J. O'Neill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
>>>Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
>>>this bending. It is significant.
>>>
>>>
>>Without the spring a good (not RS) 102" won't bend that much to make a
>>difference. I've always had one on my trucks over the years. We did have a
>>freezing rain storm a few years back, going 55 to 60mph the ice formation
>>had it bent pretty good.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Is it just me, or does 55-60 MPH seem a little fast for an ice storm? I must
>be getting old....
>
>
>
>
Maybe he was in K.I.T.T.?

[jim]

Steveo wrote:
> Vinnie S. > wrote:
>
>>>72 posts fot a 102" whip? WTF? ISee what happens when I leave you
>>
>>incharge for a few days !
>>
>>Vinnie S.
>>
>
> Crack that whip!
>
Isn't Devo from your neck of the woods hehehe

[DrDeath]

"jim" > wrote in message
...
> Steveo wrote:
>> Vinnie S. > wrote:
>>
>>>>72 posts fot a 102" whip? WTF? ISee what happens when I leave you
>>>
>>>incharge for a few days !
>>>
>>>Vinnie S.
>>>
>>
>> Crack that whip!
>>
> Isn't Devo from your neck of the woods hehehe

Those were sad days for music.

[DrDeath]

"U-Know-Who" > wrote in message
...
>
> "DrDeath" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
>>> > wrote:
>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>>>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>>>>with the whip ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to
>>>>bend back quite a bit
>>>>when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got
>>>>myself a quick connect
>>>>and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This
>>>>way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for
>>>>transmission
>>>>and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick
>>>>disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and
>>>>put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very
>>>>pleased with it!!
>>>>73
>>>>
>>>>Gen. J. O'Neill
>>>
>>> Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
>>> Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
>>> this bending. It is significant.
>>
>> Without the spring a good (not RS) 102" won't bend that much to make a
>> difference. I've always had one on my trucks over the years. We did have
>> a freezing rain storm a few years back, going 55 to 60mph the ice
>> formation had it bent pretty good.
>>
>
> Is it just me, or does 55-60 MPH seem a little fast for an ice storm? I
> must be getting old....
>
I was in my 4X4 and it was only sticking to powerlines and such, the roads
were in pretty good shape.

[DrDeath]

Jack O'Neill" > wrote in message
...
> U-Know-Who wrote:
>
>>"DrDeath" > wrote in message
...
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
>>>>>>because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
>>>>>>with the whip ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to
>>>>>bend back quite a bit
>>>>>when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got
>>>>>myself a quick connect
>>>>>and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring.
>>>>>This
>>>>>way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for
>>>>>transmission
>>>>>and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick
>>>>>disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and
>>>>>put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very
>>>>>pleased with it!!
>>>>>73
>>>>>
>>>>>Gen. J. O'Neill
>>>>>
>>>>Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
>>>>Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
>>>>this bending. It is significant.
>>>>
>>>Without the spring a good (not RS) 102" won't bend that much to make a
>>>difference. I've always had one on my trucks over the years. We did have
>>>a freezing rain storm a few years back, going 55 to 60mph the ice
>>>formation had it bent pretty good.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Is it just me, or does 55-60 MPH seem a little fast for an ice storm? I
>>must be getting old....
>>
>>
> Maybe he was in K.I.T.T.?

No way, K.I.T.T. would have nagged me like a wife : )

[anti-killfile-club]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:29:20 -0600, "DrDeath"
> wrote in
>:

<snip>
>..... He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a
>cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try
>anything to get the bull**** started.


Once again..... when did I say that? I searched google but only found
-your- post with the alleged quote:

http://tinyurl.com/ckvhb

Please reference the post, or at least provide a link.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[DrLife@yahoo.comyour name]

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:29:20 -0600, "DrDeath"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> <snip>
> >..... He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a
> >cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try
> >anything to get the bull**** started.

Define "talk". Is that a keyclown term meaning 12db gain such as
the X-Terminator is purported to have over a 108" whip? Is it like
"bird watts" which are somehow better than real watts? Or "swing"
which is considered better than PEP? And by the way, 100 watts
is illegal on CB.

[Society_For_DeBunking_Of_Tnom@hotmail.comyour name]

> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:29:20 -0600, "DrDeath"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
> <snip>
> >..... He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a
> >cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try
> >anything to get the bull**** started.
>
>
> Once again..... when did I say that? I searched google but only found
> -your- post with the alleged quote:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ckvhb
>
> Please reference the post, or at least provide a link.


http://tinyurl.com/ad8sw

[Frank Gilliland]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:59:22 GMT,
wrote in
>:

>http://tinyurl.com/ad8sw


Oh yeah, now I remember. That's when he was making excuses to run a
linear on the CB. Obviously he missed the point. But ignorance doesn't
justify a deliberate misquotation, and if he actually allowed his
wounds fester all this time then he should open up to his therapist,
not to the group.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Steveo]

Jack O'Neill > wrote:
> Steveo wrote:
>
> >Jack O'Neill > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> >>--------------040301040402070807080502
> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >>
> >>Gen. J. O'Neill
> >> </pre>
> >> </blockquote>
> >> <pre wrap=""><!---->
> >> </pre>
> >></blockquote>
> >><font size="+1"><font face="Arial">> 73<br>
> >></font></font>
> >></body>
> >></html>
> >>
> >>--------------040301040402070807080502--
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >YIKES!
> >
> >
> yea, whats up with that??
>
It's HTML, ugly stuff.

[Steveo]

jim > wrote:
> Steveo wrote:
> > Vinnie S. > wrote:
> >
> >>>72 posts fot a 102" whip? WTF? ISee what happens when I leave you
> >>
> >>incharge for a few days !
> >>
> >>Vinnie S.
> >>
> >
> > Crack that whip!
> >
> Isn't Devo from your neck of the woods hehehe
>
I think those whack-o's were from Akron, right next door! :)

[Steveo]

"DrDeath" > wrote:
> "jim" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Steveo wrote:
> >> Vinnie S. > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>72 posts fot a 102" whip? WTF? ISee what happens when I leave you
> >>>
> >>>incharge for a few days !
> >>>
> >>>Vinnie S.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Crack that whip!
> >>
> > Isn't Devo from your neck of the woods hehehe
>
> Those were sad days for music.
>
They were trend setters with those garbage can lids on their heads. :)

[Steveo]

"DrDeath" > wrote:
> Jack O'Neill" > wrote in message
> ...
> > U-Know-Who wrote:
> >>Is it just me, or does 55-60 MPH seem a little fast for an ice storm? I
> >>must be getting old....
> >>
> >>
> > Maybe he was in K.I.T.T.?
>
> No way, K.I.T.T. would have nagged me like a wife : )
>
D'OH! I know that sound!

[james]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 15:19:26 -0500, wrote:

>+<
>+<>>+<The db calculation were computed after taking the same CB and exciting
>+<>>+<it with a variable power transmitter to see how the noted S-meter
>+<>>+<readings related to power output of the variable transmitter.
>+<>*******
>+<>
>+<>Sorry I put little faith in S-meter readings. I would prefer a
>+<>spectrum analyzer, a preamp and the test antenna to determine gain of
>+<>the antenna.
>+<
>+<I'd prefer a Maserati
******

Your tests really do not measure gain perse of the antenna but more
the efficiency of the antennae tested. Now that can be calculated into
a dB ratio and presented as gain. In reality it is not actually the
gain of the antenna. That would reconcile the large variations of
readings between the extremes.

Radiated power(Pr) from a 1/4 antenna is

18.27* Im^2 = Pr

where Im is the magnitude of the antenna current. Gain calulations of
an antenna factor in power loss to heat and other factors(Pl). Thus
the total power into an antenna is the sum of power radiatied as a TEM
wave and those losses which are incurred. While at very small power
levels the heat loss in an antenna does apporach zero. There are other
losses besides heat. The largest of all is ground loss.

Mobile installations can be as poor as 5% efficient. That results in
only 5% of the total power input actually being radiated. A very good
mobile installation can be as good as 65% efficient. In dBs that would
be about 11dB.

Lastly,I beleive that you mentioned that the distance separating the
two antennea were about 200 feet. A better distance would be 350 feet
minimum. This will get you beyond 10 wavelengths separation. In that
distance, near field power is a nonfactor and the TEM wave off the
antenna is fully formed. The near fields from an antenna are
measurable out to about 3 wavelengths from the antenna. It is there
that the TEM wave is nearly formed and by ten wavelengths from the
antenna is its strongest.

Trust me antenna efficiency is far more important than antenna gain in
a mobile installation. HIgh ground losses, can make the best mobile
antenna look horrible.

james

[tnom@mucks.net]

>Your tests really do not measure gain perse of the antenna but more
>the efficiency of the antennae tested. Now that can be calculated into
>a dB ratio and presented as gain. In reality it is not actually the
>gain of the antenna.

The db expressed was not intended to be the gain (dbd, or dbi) of the
antenna.

>That would reconcile the large variations of
>readings between the extremes.
>
>Radiated power(Pr) from a 1/4 antenna is
>
>18.27* Im^2 = Pr
>
>where Im is the magnitude of the antenna current. Gain calulations of
>an antenna factor in power loss to heat and other factors(Pl). Thus
>the total power into an antenna is the sum of power radiatied as a TEM
>wave and those losses which are incurred. While at very small power
>levels the heat loss in an antenna does apporach zero. There are other
>losses besides heat. The largest of all is ground loss.
>
>Mobile installations can be as poor as 5% efficient. That results in
>only 5% of the total power input actually being radiated. A very good
>mobile installation can be as good as 65% efficient. In dBs that would
>be about 11dB.
>
>Lastly,I beleive that you mentioned that the distance separating the
>two antennea were about 200 feet. A better distance would be 350 feet
>minimum. This will get you beyond 10 wavelengths separation. In that
>distance, near field power is a nonfactor and the TEM wave off the
>antenna is fully formed. The near fields from an antenna are
>measurable out to about 3 wavelengths from the antenna. It is there
>that the TEM wave is nearly formed and by ten wavelengths from the
>antenna is its strongest.
>
>Trust me antenna efficiency is far more important than antenna gain in
>a mobile installation. HIgh ground losses, can make the best mobile
>antenna look horrible.
>
>james

OK, so in the real world we are never effected by "antenna
efficiency", "ground loss" ect.ect.?

The test is as stated. It was never intended to be a lab test. It
was intended to show what would happen if this particular test
scenario was followed.

[Jack O'Neill]

Steveo wrote:

>"DrDeath" > wrote:
>
>
>>Jack O'Neill" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>U-Know-Who wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is it just me, or does 55-60 MPH seem a little fast for an ice storm? I
>>>>must be getting old....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Maybe he was in K.I.T.T.?
>>>
>>>
>>No way, K.I.T.T. would have nagged me like a wife : )
>>
>>
>>
>D'OH! I know that sound!
>
>
:-D

[james]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:01:52 -0500, wrote:

>+<OK, so in the real world we are never effected by "antenna
>+<efficiency", "ground loss" ect.ect.?
>+<
>+<The test is as stated. It was never intended to be a lab test. It
>+<was intended to show what would happen if this particular test
>+<scenario was followed.
*****

In the real world ground losses in a mobile installation are real and
can be quite large. These losses affect efficiency and thus
performance.

What you did is to show that there can be marked differences between
antennae and their istallation. The more complex issue is, are these
same differences repeatable from vehicle to vehicle and area to area?
I seriously doubt that they are.

james

[moparholic at hotmail dot com is a sissy]

ugly stuff for a man to allow to be splutted on his face, like you do
at petro

[jim]

Steveo wrote:
> jim > wrote:
>
>>Steveo wrote:
>>
>>>Vinnie S. > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>72 posts fot a 102" whip? WTF? ISee what happens when I leave you
>>>>
>>>>incharge for a few days !
>>>>
>>>>Vinnie S.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Crack that whip!
>>>
>>
>>Isn't Devo from your neck of the woods hehehe
>>
>
> I think those whack-o's were from Akron, right next door! :)
fun to look at painful to listen to.

[DrDeath]

> wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:29:20 -0600, "DrDeath"
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>> <snip>
>> >..... He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a
>> >cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try
>> >anything to get the bull**** started.
>
> Define "talk". Is that a keyclown term meaning 12db gain such as
> the X-Terminator is purported to have over a 108" whip?
Talk, you know flapping your lips as you are doing now. As far as the
x-terminator, you got the wrong guy asshole. I don't own one and never made
that claim.

Is it like
> "bird watts" which are somehow better than real watts? Or "swing"
> which is considered better than PEP? And by the way, 100 watts
> is illegal on CB.

What the **** are you rambling about. Did I say anything about PEP or swing
or watts?
By the way, I could care less about 100 watts being illegal you pole smoker.

[moparholic at hotmail dot com is a sissy]

You could also care less about the fact that you are not heterosexual