On 7 Feb 2005 01:57:45 -0800, wrote:

If you would read my posts more carefully,
you would be aware that the reason for the low
dBi is that the lobe is 180 degrees, and F/B
ratio limited to around 11dB.

This only raises the obvious cynicism of choice. You could have
selected a worse antenna to claim a better contrast - there are always
losers available for use as a cat's paw.

For an honest comparison, it is sufficient to simply report your
characteristics in units of dBi and offer the angle of measurement.

Speaking of reports, your breathless testimonials draped with the
mantle of
are described in less than specific details:
So if you assume
....
So we have about
....
That's like
....
That's like
....
It's only a theoretical
....
we didn't really
....
It's still not really a fair comparison.

All of the above don't really mean much, because no real details of
anything are actually revealed. So when we get to this:
I presented the theoretical calculations, not actual measurements, sure.
I would say without fear of any real contradiction that NO you did
neither.

And then to rely on the customer to confirm by
you can really hear the difference.
is droll indeed. This the same effete standard of wine snobs who
justify paying $300 a bottle for Chateau Annie Green Springs. Let the
bottle caps fly!

It takes no great effort to duplicate your rather sloppy presentation
to offer many better, smaller designs that eclipse your speculated
results. Through selective disclosure, choosing a weak competitor,
leaning on abused references, and one thumb on the scale, anyone can
inflate performance claims to satisfy a customer (or attract more).

However, when one pirate fleeces a community of pirates, I can enjoy
the cluster**** going on and offer "yo-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum!"
It is a comedy of a genetic self-thinning population after all.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC