On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:58:22 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , Lancer
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:32:44 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
:



At 13 miles, another issue you will have is radiation angle. I don't
suppose you measured that either, did you? Do you know why that is
important? Because you don't state the HAAT of the antenna for either
the transmitter or the receiver, nor do you state whether the 13/24
miles was flat. If you just wanted to get a relative signal strength
reading without the confound of HAAT, why did you stroll 13 miles
instead of only half a mile or so? All you needed to do was clear the
near-field, which most engineers consider to be six wavelengths for HF
(or 66 meters, a far cry from 13 miles where a lot can happen
inbetween).

There are WAY too many issues with your test, and any or all of them
could have been a factor in your inconsistent readings. Looking back
an those threads, it appears that you already knew that, too.


I agree 100% Frank, you raise many many valid points as to why this test is
really bougus.

Which points? You don't have a clue what Frank even posted.

Even if he doesn't, he should be able to recognize Tnom's subjectification of a
supposedly objective experiment, his inattention to detail, the lack of critical
information, and his failure (unwillingness?) to disclose his previous test and
it's contradictory results. That, in my book, is sufficient to conclude that
Tnom's tests are bogus. In fact, the results of the second test are almost -too-
good, skewed out of proportion with reality -- almost like he was reading the
S-meter backwards -- and extrapolation of those results suggest that the rubber
ducky is the most efficient antenna design, second only to the theoretical dummy
load! It doesn't take an engineer to see that much.



Maybe he should be able to recognize a lot of things, I doubt that he
even fully read what you posted.