wrote:

[stuff]

Yes, it is duly noted that you would repeat what has been done before ...

However, we ALL know where that gets one, don't we?

Regards,
JS

On Jun 22, 5:56 pm, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

[stuff]

Yes, it is duly noted that you would repeat what has been done before ...

However, we ALL know where that gets one, don't we?

Regards,
JS


I think it would give me the better antenna in this case.
I doubt he would want me at one of his seminars..
I'd be one of those hecklers that he has nightmares
about late at night. But in my case, I would whip out
my antenna and whoop him right there on the spot if he
was brave enough to compare.
I repeat what is proven to be best.
I've already tried all his methods,
and proven them inferior by testing.
I'll back up my jibber jabber with real working antennas.
Would be simple to set up too.. All I need is a
standing mast like yours, and a few wires to
string out a large top hat.
I wonder what his alphabet soup would buy him if he
lost... :/
MK

wrote:

[stuff]

In countless physics labs, around the world, students complete
experiments done countless times before--and this is good ... it is
hoped, one day, they go on to complete experiments never done before, or
even ones not done properly, or those were important data was missed ...

That is simply all I point out ... an open mind never knows for certain.

Regards,
JS

John Smith I wrote:

[stuff]

Actually, I don't think I explained that well--for want of a better
explanation ...

Take the Michelson–Morley experiment. They were attempting to find the
equivalent of how the doppler effect affects sound in air. However, if
the way matter affects ether is similar to the way air affects sound,
the earth and its' atmosphere would be a less than optimal test bed.

Indeed, if you take the horn from a train and place it in a long train,
you would loose the effect, the skin of the train
deflects/slows/distorts/whatever the air which causes the effect.

Now, if someone where to reconstruct the Michelson–Morley experiment
from the nose of a space shuttle (no matter intervening or massive
matter in close proximity), to mirrors traveling at the same speed and
in the same trajectory of the shuttle, perhaps a quite different
conclusion would be reached. Especially, if the matter of air and
proximity to earth is masking anything enough to throw off the experiment.

I know unexpected results were obtained when a long tether was let out
behind the shuttle, and never explained to my satisfaction.

Perhaps that is a somewhat better way to express what I attempted in the
post this one responds too ...

Regards,
JS

On 22 Jun, 17:21, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

[stuff]

In countless physics labs, around the world, students complete
experiments done countless times before--and this is good ... it is
hoped, one day, they go on to complete experiments never done before, or
even ones not done properly, or those were important data was missed ...

That is simply all I point out ... an open mind never knows for certain.

Regards,
JS

He has done everything to do with antennas. He has also read the WWW
from beginning to the end, nothing new he has done it all. I would
imagine that the antenna company that he designed antennas for
gave up and went bankrupt when he said he was going to retire.
I would imagine that is why the space ship landed today in
California no point in taking risks now that he has left.
IEEE is looking for an experienced antenna designer with
extensive knoweledge of all types of antennas with extensive
experience in determining worthwhile projects and be able to
smell those that would fool others. Must be able to provide
evidence of achievements that have benefited the advance of science.
Experience in winding coils accepted as well as evidence of
climbing towers to replace light bulbs. Must be a EE with a
Masters from an accredited college with a history of writing
papers on the science of antennas as well as able to judge
antenna designs presented to the IEEE. Trench diggers for
cable installations need not apply.
Maybe he will not be around to long as he is evidently
better than sliced bread in all the sciences.
I imagine that he made more money on the stock market
than the average broker

art wrote:

[stuff]

Well, it is good to remember, the boys in R&D (the ones who come up with
the new stuff) get paid just as much to find out what doesn't work, as
the do to find the stuff which does ...

It is the ratio of the two which determines if they keep their jobs or
not ... well, unless they work for gov't ...

Regards,
JS

On Jun 22, 7:33 pm, art wrote:
On 22 Jun, 17:21, John Smith I wrote:

wrote:

[stuff]

In countless physics labs, around the world, students complete
experiments done countless times before--and this is good ... it is
hoped, one day, they go on to complete experiments never done before, or
even ones not done properly, or those were important data was missed ...

That is simply all I point out ... an open mind never knows for certain.

Regards,
JS

He has done everything to do with antennas.

Nope.. But I've tried nearly every perversion of a short vertical
you can conjer up.. I bet a lot more than you have.
I tried the methods that guy is using a long time ago.
Do you think I should ignore all results of the tests I do?
If his methods were best, don't you think I would have one
mobile?


He has also read the WWW
from beginning to the end,

Not yet, but I have road runner cable now.
I'm working on it at a bit faster clip now...

nothing new he has done it all.

I haven't molested Paris Hilton yet...
But, actually, she's really not my type..
I don't really like whiny bitchettes...

I would
imagine that the antenna company that he designed antennas for
gave up and went bankrupt when he said he was going to retire.

And what company might that be?

I would imagine that is why the space ship landed today in
California no point in taking risks now that he has left.

If that's what you imagine, then you are fairly clueless.

IEEE is looking for an experienced antenna designer with
extensive knoweledge of all types of antennas with extensive
experience in determining worthwhile projects and be able to
smell those that would fool others.

I already have a job.. But maybe I could consult for them
part time. I can usually smell male bovine droppings from a fairly
good distance.

Must be able to provide
evidence of achievements that have benefited the advance of science.

I'll show mine, if you show yours...

Experience in winding coils accepted as well as evidence of
climbing towers to replace light bulbs.

I can wind a coil, but I've never climbed a tower to change a
light bulb. I would like to try it, but access to the local antenna
farm is fairly restricted. Mainly due to liability, insurance
purposes. BTW, I'm not an aggie... Does that give me extra
light bulb changer status?

Must be a EE with a
Masters from an accredited college

I'll get mine when you get yours...

with a history of writing
papers on the science of antennas as well as able to judge
antenna designs presented to the IEEE.

Sounds like a boring job.. I've decided I'll pass..
I'd rather fly a Southwest 737 than do something
as sleep inducing as that.

Trench diggers for
cable installations need not apply.

I've never worked for the cable company, but
like I say, I do have road runner cable now.
But our system is fiber optic, overhead lines,
etc.. No trenches around here.
But playing in the dirt does kind of appeal to me.

Maybe he will not be around to long as he is evidently
better than sliced bread in all the sciences.

If I'm not around *too* long, it's probably cuz I puff too
many cig's and drink about 22 cups of coffee a day..
You can see me hard at work here...
http://web.wt.net/~nm5k/nm5k.jpg

I imagine that he made more money on the stock market
than the average broker

You really wonder about stuff like that?
You must really be bored...
If I were your doktor, I would recommend two prozac,
and call me monday morning, at which time I'll consider
a lobotomy if you haven't improved by then.
MK

wrote:

...

Well, it appears to me, the shortened 10 meter 1/2 is superior to a 1/4
(both mounted mobile) and the shortened 1/2 is VERY close in performance
to a full ~17 ft. (vs. ~5.3 ft. shortened--with the top hat and spacings
optimized, the difference is less than the width of a meter needle.)

This silly combination of know "tricks" is certainly doing something
which common place formulas/equations don't account for ...

However, if you already naysay on the navy data, I won't be able to
present any proof which even comes close--my equipment budget doesn't
even begin to match that of the navys' to begin with ...

Too bad a bunch of different people don't use a standard test jig, apply
their own modifications and generate a ton of data/results ...

Regards,
JS

On 23 Jun, 07:44, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

Well, it appears to me, the shortened 10 meter 1/2 is superior to a 1/4
(both mounted mobile) and the shortened 1/2 is VERY close in performance
to a full ~17 ft. (vs. ~5.3 ft. shortened--with the top hat and spacings
optimized, the difference is less than the width of a meter needle.)

This silly combination of know "tricks" is certainly doing something
which common place formulas/equations don't account for ...

However, if you already naysay on the navy data, I won't be able to
present any proof which even comes close--my equipment budget doesn't
even begin to match that of the navys' to begin with ...

JS, I would say that your results are significant assuming you used
the same ground plane. Given the tolerances involved and knowing
that the human ear would not be able to discern the difference
I think you have provided enough even for the poorest naysayer
to cogitate upon. They could say I misunderstood I suppose
To bring down the antenna length as much as
you have without a discernable difference will certainly gain
attention from mobilers. After all I doubt that any of them
considered competing with a testing station with respect to
a ground plane. Well done
Art






Too bad a bunch of different people don't use a standard test jig, apply
their own modifications and generate a ton of data/results ...

Regards,
JS

On Jun 23, 8:44 am, John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

...

Well, it appears to me, the shortened 10 meter 1/2 is superior to a 1/4
(both mounted mobile) and the shortened 1/2 is VERY close in performance
to a full ~17 ft. (vs. ~5.3 ft. shortened--with the top hat and spacings
optimized, the difference is less than the width of a meter needle.)

I assume you mean winding a 1/2 wave winding on a short stick.
I could see that maybe beating a 1/4 wave if the ground system was
not the greatest..
But I don't really see it happening over a good ground, where
the 1/4 wave isn't really stunted.
It's quite possible for for a 1/4 wave whip on a bumper, to
lose to a loaded whip half it's size, if mounted on the roof.
So on a car/truck, the location can make a big difference..
CB'ers have run those things for years under various names.
I can see cases with lousy grounds where a 1/2 wave, even
short might be worth a try. But I once did a comparion with my
standard "1/4 wave tuned" mobile on 15m, vs using my 40 meter
setup on 15m as a "extended winding" psuedo 5/8 wound whip.
The normal 1/4 wave setup was the best.


This silly combination of know "tricks" is certainly doing something
which common place formulas/equations don't account for ...

Ground, or lack of it could account for it. Same mount location, etc?
Bumper, trunk, or roof?
A mobile is not the best place to test vertical antennas.
Too quirky...The car is half the antenna.
Sure, you can see which one works best, but it's not a
very good test platform in general. I'd rather test over a
specified quantity of radials, if ground mounted.
Ditto for elevated, the only difference being the number
required drops as you increase height.

However, if you already naysay on the navy data, I won't be able to
present any proof which even comes close--my equipment budget doesn't
even begin to match that of the navys' to begin with ...

I don't know what navy data you are talkng about.

Too bad a bunch of different people don't use a standard test jig, apply
their own modifications and generate a ton of data/results ...

I don't know what you mean by "test jig".. What you have as far as
a "test" antenna, or having a location with a specified ground
quality?
MK