Richard Clark wrote:
On 7 Feb 2005 01:44:10 -0800, wrote:
Come listen for yourself...
????? 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....

Obviously your hearing perception exceeds the characteristics of a
larger part of mankind. This makes any claims for someone ELSE to
listen to the difference even more problematic.

Hearing is the poorest measure second only to "seeing" for one self.
Leave this type of testimonial for the Sunday services.


A good receiver actually gives you
TONS of information. You can hear overmodulation,
sideband "splatter" to adjacent channels,
spurious oscillations on other channels,
dead carrier hum in your signal, the overall
intelligibility of your signal and the audio frequency
response (roughly). No field strength meter can
tell you this information!

Bottom line is, human hearing is
the ultimate destination. It can
be more qualitative that quantity.



Slick

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

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:
On 6 Feb 2005 21:19:41 -0800, wrote:

Asymetric array of dipoles
Phased array of vertical monopoles

Remember that you must keep the
pattern about 180 degrees, and the F/B
ratio should be no more than about 11 dB.

I really doubt if you will
supply a link...

www.andrews.com many of those commercial designs could be duplicated
and there are a few repeater builder sites that do exactly that.


???? That's a long distance
telephone service site...


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 14:06:03 -0800, wrote:

???? That's a long distance
telephone service site...

http://www.andrew.com/products/antennas/

I added an "s" by error. Sheesh.

I figured you'd know their products as they are well known in
broadcast and VHF/UHF ham circles. However that was only one example.
There is also CellOne who also do antenna products and other useful
items. Of course there are only a few hundred (or more) companies
making antennas many of which are suited for a cartiod pattern work.

Allison

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?

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:54:15 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote:


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?

What he wants is a cartoid pattern, That is a "D" shaped roughly
pattern that's all from and not so much back.

The easy way to do that is a good colinear and mount it near
the flat face of a tower (usually less than 1/4 wave away) . The net
effect is slightly increased gain away from the tower and a mild null
on the other side of the tower. Most of the time this is not desired
but, there are valid cases where you don't wish to waste power behind
you. The most common is coastal commercial broadcat radio and TV.

Allison

Richard Clark 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. 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."


"Hollow challenge"? I don't think you have the
facilities to do this....you're field seems to be
more along the lines of a bad used car saleman!

If someone can come up with a 3 element
yagi (we wanted to keep the size down), with
a 180 degree front lobe, and about 11 dB F/B
ratio, that has a better than 4.5 dBi in the
front lobe, i'd like to see it. Use EZNEC
or whatever simulator you have, and make
an H-plane plot... i'd like to see that.



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


I ain't trying to sell anything here, Dip****.

I'm just informing other people of my results,
take it or leave it.




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.


The only vacuum is in your head, Richard.

Some things never change....


Slick

wrote:
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 16:54:15 -0700, Wes Stewart
wrote:


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?

What he wants is a cartoid pattern, That is a "D" shaped roughly
pattern that's all from and not so much back.


Indeed. Basically like what i showed you:

http://www.drslick.org/Temp1/yagiplot.jpg


This "D" shape is suitable for when the broadcaster
wants some directivity, but will NOT be on the
extreme edge of the service area or town. It's
obviously not suitable if you are in the center
of town, unless you wish to focus more ERP
in the direction of some taller buildings,
for example.



The easy way to do that is a good colinear and mount it near
the flat face of a tower (usually less than 1/4 wave away) . The net
effect is slightly increased gain away from the tower and a mild null
on the other side of the tower. Most of the time this is not
desired
but, there are valid cases where you don't wish to waste power behind
you. The most common is coastal commercial broadcat radio and TV.


Do you have a specific design on hand?


Slick