Richard Clark wrote:
On 6 Feb 2005 21:22:19 -0800, wrote:

Come listen for yourself...

Possibly one of the worst methods of absolute measurement.


Never said it was an absolute measurement,
don't be ridiculous! But, ultimately, that's
all we really want, right? Better listenability.

I've already said i don't believe the
19 to 300 watt F/B calculations, but bottom
line, is: It's a MUCH clearer and cleaner
signal ALL around.



However, your claim ignores that volume is invariant to signal
strength by design at the limiting stage in any FM receiver.


????? Volume has nothing to do with this!

You could throw a dead carrier and still
have an idea of how close to full quieting you
are....


Slick

You are lucky to see the gain you have, considering the lack
of decoupling...Or at least in that pix....Also, thats a
pretty lame yagi, so like you say, not really a fair test...
My 3 el vertical yagi would eat that j pole for lunch, being
it has about 9.4 dbi gain...Or about 7.3 dbd....
The J poles are ok I suppose, and are good for people with
copper and torches...But they would be even better with some
additional decoupling...I bet they still have trouble matching
the old isopole that was made by AEA...That antenna was well
decoupled. Looked like a ballistic missile, but it was hard
to beat as far as performance. It was generally the benchmark
most other dual 5/8 designs were judged by.
:/ MK

wrote:
You are lucky to see the gain you have, considering the lack
of decoupling...Or at least in that pix....Also, thats a
pretty lame yagi, so like you say, not really a fair test...


What lack of decoupling? It's got the
coax inductive choke on the input, 4 turns
of 4" diameter.

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.


My 3 el vertical yagi would eat that j pole for lunch, being
it has about 9.4 dbi gain...Or about 7.3 dbd....


So what, the Super J-pole in omnidirectional,
so that's not saying much for a Yagi. We could have
easily designed it with more gain, but the frontal
lobe would have been way narrower.

How broad or narrow is the front lobe
of your yagi? How many degrees? Much
smaller than 180 no doubt.



Slick

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

Richard Clark wrote:

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).


I challenge anyone else to use
whatever Yagi Optimizers they have
to come up with a 3 element design
(to keep the size down) with a 180 degree
front lobe, and with an 11dB F/B ratio,
that has a greater than 4.5 dBi in the
front lobe. Plot the H-plane of your
simulation too.



Slick

On 7 Feb 2005 13:57:18 -0800, wrote:


Richard Clark wrote:

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).


I challenge anyone else to use
whatever Yagi Optimizers they have
to come up with a 3 element design
(to keep the size down) with a 180 degree
front lobe, and with an 11dB F/B ratio,
that has a greater than 4.5 dBi in the
front lobe. Plot the H-plane of your
simulation too.

This is a hollow challenge in that such designs are already freely
available through EZNEC. Again, the thumb on the scale scenario
offers easy ways to pencil whip these numbers above, given they are
only partial disclosures tricked up for the benefit of marketing to
suckers otherwise inflating their egos as "pirates."

To that band of would-be broadcasters, it is patently obvious that our
salesman here has already admitted that no Yagi Optimizer was fully
engaged to optimize the "3 element design." (And there is an absolute
lack of data for this so-called Super JPole.) As such, he is mocking
your credulity to suggest that YO would somehow be appropriate as a
package to pursue this particular goal. When marketing has such
contempt for customers, you have to wonder about them (both marketing
AND the customers).

What is even more contemptible, is the notion that the inferior design
is preferable to other designs (they abound for that very reason).
The suggestion of any superiority of the "super JPole" has already
been draped in presumptions and strained references. This is simply
the clouded judgment of a solution in search of a problem. When all
you know is about JPoles (which is arguable), then they solve all of
life's transmission woes.

Much of this tarted up comparison smacks of a quarter mile race
between a corvette and a school bus - ignoring that you wanted a
recommendation for a bicycle.

I will leave it to the more industrious customers or would-be
customers to simply download the free version of EZNEC and confirm
that this clod-hopping 3 element design above would be bettered by a 2
element one. This has already been offered by Allison to no
noticeable intelligent response. I will leave it to those who glom
onto vacuous marketing with the fatal attraction of a moth for a flame
to skip this exercise.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

On 7 Feb 2005 13:57:18 -0800, wrote:


Richard Clark wrote:

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).


I challenge anyone else to use
whatever Yagi Optimizers they have
to come up with a 3 element design
(to keep the size down) with a 180 degree
front lobe, and with an 11dB F/B ratio,
that has a greater than 4.5 dBi in the
front lobe. Plot the H-plane of your
simulation too.

I'll admit that I've not followed this thread and don't intend to
punch any tar babies. But I must ask; what the hell is a "180 degree"
front lobe?

wrote:
I challenge anyone else to use
whatever Yagi Optimizers they have
to come up with a 3 element design
(to keep the size down) with a 180 degree
front lobe, and with an 11dB F/B ratio,
that has a greater than 4.5 dBi in the
front lobe.

Why would anyone want such an antenna?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Richard Clark wrote:

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).


I challenge anyone else to use
whatever Yagi Optimizers they have
to come up with a 3 element design
(to keep the size down) with a 180 degree
front lobe, and with an 11dB F/B ratio,
that has a greater than 4.5 dBi in the
front lobe. Plot the H-plane of your
simulation too.



Slick

wrote:
wrote:
You are lucky to see the gain you have, considering the lack
of decoupling...Or at least in that pix....Also, thats a
pretty lame yagi, so like you say, not really a fair test...


What lack of decoupling? It's got the
coax inductive choke on the input, 4 turns
of 4" diameter.

I don't recall seeing that in the picture. But even still, I
wonder if it's as good as a full 1/4 wave decoupling cone, or
radials...Much better than nothing though...

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.

I only read the first post...


My 3 el vertical yagi would eat that j pole for lunch, being
it has about 9.4 dbi gain...Or about 7.3 dbd....


So what, the Super J-pole in omnidirectional,
so that's not saying much for a Yagi. We could have
easily designed it with more gain, but the frontal
lobe would have been way narrower.

Yea, but if you are going to post a CAPS thread
claiming a j pole beats a yagi by 1 db, most are
going to assume the yagi isn't crippled up...
It's sort of Frackish.....:/

How broad or narrow is the front lobe
of your yagi? How many degrees? Much
smaller than 180 no doubt.

No doubt...

I'm not trying to rain on your parade, and surely
applaud you for building these, I just don't quite
get the purpose of such a comparison...Everyone
already knows what the gains of the antennas are..
Well, except for the de-tuned yagi... I mean,
is it really a surprise a collinear might beat
a yagi with about half the normal gain of the
NBS 3 el?
I'll bow out...I really have no problem with the
antenna, etc...I just wanted to stir it, being you
have this frackish thread title... MK