There is not one shred of science in any of this - except the words
they use to disguise the fraud.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Thanks to OM Mario, 9A4DE, who called my attention to the following two
sotes, I got the answer I was looking for. The sites a

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo
rt_2.pdf

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 09:20:08 +0200,
(Bozidar Pasaric) wrote:

Thanks to OM Mario, 9A4DE, who called my attention to the following two
sotes, I got the answer I was looking for. The sites a

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~calvi...enna_test_repo
rt_2.pdf

Hi Bozidar,

Looks OK until you ask yourself just what does line of sight
calibration have to do with useful DX communication? Their comparison
of AM antennas and their replacement eh model was tellingly abysmal
when it came to a practical sized service area (in other words, beyond
line of sight communications).

I notice they either suppress their FCC antenna report, or otherwise
hide their citations that offer signal reports that dive 30 dB below
the standard AM signal for their ramshackle AM replacement antenna.
A tractor couldn't bury their signal deeper.

Do you need a copy of that? I kept one in anticipation of its
embarrassing numbers (obviously misunderstood by the clients of this
test) suddenly disappearing (obviously when they finally got a clue).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC