RadioBanter - View Single Post

June 17th 04, 03:50 PM

From: (iamnotiamnotgeorge2004)
In ,
(Nicolai Carpathia) wrote:
From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
In , wrote:
Many times...........even tested them.

Sorry your tests results were debunked by

Frank in the xterminator thread, you are a

voodoo tech

(Frank never tested any of the antennas.)

I just tested my 9' whip (mounted on the

roo-guard of my Dodge). Tied it back so the

top was parallel with the ground (pointing

East, if that makes a difference).

Measurements were compared to the antenna
straight up.......;

SWR didn't change at all, and vertically

polarized field strength dropped by a hair.

owever, horizontally polarized field strength

made a huge jump to the good. Subjectively, I

listened to the toilet bowl while pulling on the

lanyard.

But,,,,there is supposed to be no skip...

Who said anything about skip, Twist?

Go to the local flea market and buy a cheap webtv, Frank. You're
cornfused again and are calling everyone "twist".
What is "the toilet bowl"? I was assuming you referred to 6 since you
have a perpetual menstruation concerning skip and big radios.
Since you were listening to 6, you were hearing skip, as you damn sure
weren't listening local.

Some weak signals disappeared while others

came in that weren't there before.

And those "weak" signals must have been local, since you are playing
semantic word games and essentially claiming there was no skip.

Let the whip

go back to vertical and the old signals came

back while the new signals were lost.

Looks like it's a compromise situation.
=A0
It is. You failed to account for, or at least detail, a myriad of
factors. Were you in a free zone?

No, I pay taxes just like every other

homeowner.

All you had to say was you were wrong, you don;t have to cry about it.
After all, one wouldn't expect any experiment performed by yourself
yield anything other than subjective results.
_
How near was the closest object?

The curb was right next to the truck. Gee,

maybe that messed up my test.....

Your incompetence did that.

_
Did
you have a duplicate antenna in which to compare duplicate tests?

Yes I did. Did I use it? No.

Flawing your subjected reportings even further.

Did
you repeat the test with the antenna on the opposite side of the
vehicle?

The antenna not mounted on either side of the
vehicle. It was mounted on the front of the

vehicle, which I clearly stated and you couldn't
comprehend because of your communication

deficit.

To be fair, you need spoon fed and asked may things twice, because you
have problems making yourself clear and once you say something, you
often must reclarify yourself because you maintain what you wrote wasn't
esxactly what you meant. Add to this your repeated homage via liberal
quoting of myself, and there we have it.

Did you move the vehicle around?

Why yes, it started break-dancing as soon as I
keyed the mic.
=A0=A0
LOL,,,,,no need for the sarcasm,,,,I understand your reluctance to
discuss your limitations.
None really needed me to point out your flawed test, as most caught it
as soon as you posted your incompetence.

A single day's atmospheric
condition for a single test?

Sunny, 74 degrees, 20% humidity, 29.96

in/Hg, tree and grass pollen were moderate,

weed pollen was low, mold spores were high,

no measurable seismic activity and the aurora

monitor was quiet.

Now duplicate your tests in addition to your climate.

=A0=A0One perfunctory test is meaningless in the context of science.

Unless the test is conclusive.

One test can never be be conclusive in such applied logistics.

Once again you are confusing inductive and

deductive logic,

Not at all, you''re confusing my objective logic with your subjective
results.

but that's no suprise since the only part of the

book you studied was the chapter on logical

fallacies.

Toss all the one liner insults you need in order to soothe your low
self-esteem. If I wouldn't have pointed out your incompetence
concerning your monkey acts, ignorance, and inability to differentiate
between objective and subjective results, another most certainly would
have.