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

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

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

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

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 04:20:48 GMT, 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.

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


What he really wants is to illegally broadcast on the FM broadcast
band. Look at the original post. 2/3 of his newsgroups are Pirate
Radio.


--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

Buck wrote:

What he really wants is to illegally broadcast on the FM broadcast
band. Look at the original post. 2/3 of his newsgroups are Pirate
Radio.


My Goodness! I would never break any
FCC rules! How dare you accuse me.

Even though you can use the Super J-pole
up to 1500 watts or so, i would recommend
not using more than 1 femtoWatt or so.

Good for mowing the lawn with your
walkman....




Slick

wrote:

My Goodness! I would never break any
FCC rules! How dare you accuse me.
. . .

No need for anyone to accuse you, it's all there on the Web:

http://www.talkaboutradioshows.com/g...ages/7526.html

Or try a google search of "dr slick" "pirate radio"

Anyone interested in knowing a bit more about Garvin Yee, aka "Dr.
Slick" can see:

http://www.artwanted.com/webjump.cfm?artid=4990

Roy Lewallen, W7EL