Originally Posted by Buck

On Wed, 03 May 2006 03:49:40 GMT, "Don" wrote:

try this one 73 ve7ado

http://www.eh-antenna.com/library/EH...A_FOR_HAMS.pdf

"Buck" wrote in message
...
Can anyone tell me about this RoomCap Antenna?


Thanks, Don.
-----------------------------



--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

Originally Posted by Buck

[color=blue]


Someone else sent a link to an EH antenna as the answer. I guess they
were wrong. Right now I cannot link to your site. For some reason, I
am unable to send email to your address, I think it has something to
do with spam filters. I get this periodically as someone on bellsouth
sends a message to a spam trap and the entire ISP is blocked.
Likewise, I have not received an email from you, probably because the
address in this is fake due to the magnitude of spam generated.
Someone else did forward an email from you that you send out showing
that what you are doing is selling the information.

No one in his right mind would order an item in which they must agree
to abide by the terms and conditions that they can't read before
buying the product.

Nothing personal, but your website is anything but professional
looking. I do recall the following: you rant and rave about what
others have said that disagree with you or your findings about your
antenna. Most, if not all these arguments, I can only find on your
own site, so your defense against these allegations and the attitude
you portray only distract focus from one's interest, your antenna, and
instead lays it onto your frustration and other's arguments.

Additionally, you could just as easily have posted the required
information about the costs and the obligatory terms and conditions of
purchase of your CD-ROM.

I must say, that based on the information on your site, there is a lot
of controversy over what your antenna actually is, or how it performs.
I notice that you don't actually sell the antenna, only the design
information on a CD-ROM. Of course, that could reinforce the idea
that you could be treading on the EH antenna design patents as someone
else suggested (that your antenna is actually an EH design.)

Personally, I think you could greatly benefit by removing all the
controversy, give a little more detail about your antenna and
specifically, adding the details of your private email that has to be
requested to learn more about the antenna.

How much are the parts required to make the antenna? After you so
carefully protected me from receiving the minimum information on
obtaining more information about the antenna, how do I know you aren't
hiding something else such as a part you manufacture that I have to
buy from you before being able to successfully build that antenna.

In all reality, you have frightened me from buying the information
from you about this antenna. I would like to hear from someone who
has actually gotten your disc and possibly built the antenna so I can
know how it performs from someone else's point of view.

If it performs as well as you claim it does, or if it is similar to
the performance of an EH per size,(for example, hypothetically
speaking, a 3 foot antenna performs as well as a 1/2 wave vertical 20
meter antenna), and if the cost and skill level required for building
the antenna is suitable to me, I might be interested in purchasing the
plans for your antenna.

However, your website leaves me with the impression that you are
afraid of being criticized, almost to the point of paranoia, and from
a business standpoint, I may be the only person who does this, but I
actually READ contracts before I sign them. If I can't read it, it
won't get signed.

This is nothing personal as neither of us knows each other. I am not
accusing you of anything, good nor bad. I am just stating things as I
see them. From what I see on your website only makes me want to know
more from what others who have interacted with your antenna have to
say before I proceed further in entering a contract with you.

Thanks for trying to send me the email. I do get frustrated at this
mess with spam filters blocking all my ham buddies and passing spam
all day long.

73 for now,
Buck
N4PGW

--
73 for now
Buck
N4PGW

Originally Posted by Roy Lewallen

Buck wrote:
. . .
If it performs as well as you claim it does, or if it is similar to
the performance of an EH per size,(for example, hypothetically
speaking, a 3 foot antenna performs as well as a 1/2 wave vertical 20
meter antenna), and if the cost and skill level required for building
the antenna is suitable to me, I might be interested in purchasing the
plans for your antenna.
. . .

You must mean, "If it performs as well as the EH antenna claims to
perform." If it can do that, it's miraculous indeed. It's no trick to
make an antenna perform as well as an EH -- a 3 foot high (fat) vertical
performs as well as a 3 foot high EH.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Originally Posted by

Ah, the "it works because I made contacts with the following DX"
antenna argument.

This may be an extremely compelling way of measuring performance of an
antenna system if done correctly.

It's certainly the most compelling kind of marketing argument snagging
prospective "magic antenna" buyers, especially those who don't have
another antenna up for comparison. But is there a way to make such an
anecdotal claim and have it mean something?

I'm thinking something along the lines of probability of making contact
with a station with identical equipment, averaged over a very very long
time.

If you know the statistical ionospheric loss for the path, the power
levels involved, and antenna gain (or LOSS) you can calculate such a
thing.

I've heard an argument recently that a particular antenna system must
not be too inefficient because it was able to produce contacts with
stations in Australia and New Zealand. The data below are in the same
category.

How do you know that the RoomCap antenna contacts were not made because
the stations on the OTHER END have much MUCH better antennas?

The dynamic range of signals present on the amateur bands is enormous.
You could have an antenna with a gain of -35dBi and still make regular
contacts. That doesn't mean it's good. How about if we stick to dB
gain relative to some simple reference antenna or the isotropic for
antenna reporting?

...

[color=blue]