snip
No Frank. You said that. Lancer does not disagree. Therefore there
would be no reason for me to tell him to get off his ass and determine
the truth.

I see.... the truth doesn't matter just as long as he agrees with you.

He does not dispute what I say so why would I tell him to test the
antennas. He pointed out with a different method (Mmana) that
Stainless Steel is not the best conductor. He even posted numbers.
What have you posted Frank? Where are your numbers? Where
is your test?

You should get off your ass and determine the truth.

Like I said, I already have. YOU need to get off YOUR fat ass and find out why
your results were so inconsistent.

The tests (all three of them) confirmed that a SS 108" can be beat.

In , wrote:


2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only assume that they were
different. Regardless, what was the forward power with each antenna, and why was
that not listed?

No need

-plonk-






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Here's your assignment for tomorrow. Get off your fat ass and test the
antennas.

Once again --- and try to comprehend it this time --- I already have.

Good. Then you have properly documented the results.

A proper test could only be done with much attention to detail.
All this would require a detailed account of every variable.
Attempts would be made to keep the variables the same between
the different antennas. If done successfully the test would reveal
useful numbers.

I'm waiting for the test conditions and your results. You do have
numbers don't you? What antennas did you test.?

snip
Even if he doesn't, he should be able to recognize Tnom's subjectification of a
supposedly objective experiment, his inattention to detail, the lack of critical
information, and his failure (unwillingness?) to disclose his previous test and
it's contradictory results.


I have made about four or five tests. Did you want me to post a mega
message with similar results from each? What was that result?

Result = 108"SS whip can be beat by some shorter antennas


That, in my book, is sufficient to conclude that
Tnom's tests are bogus. In fact, the results of the second test are almost -too-
good, skewed out of proportion with reality -- almost like he was reading the
S-meter backwards -- and extrapolation of those results suggest that the rubber
ducky is the most efficient antenna design, second only to the theoretical dummy
load! It doesn't take an engineer to see that much.


I am still waiting for your tests parameters and results. You said you
tested antennas so let's see the results. Let's see how a self
proclaimed expert at testing antennas does it. Don't tell me you dog
chewed the tests up.

"Richard Cranium" wrote in message
om...
Frank Gilliland wrote in message
. ..
In , wrote:

snip
At 27 MHz, any antenna shorter then 5 feet is a waste of time.
snip

Not true. There are antennas at five feet that will match or even
surpass a 102" SS whip.

Bull****.

This may shock and dismay some people, but I agree with you Frank. A
102" stainless steel (or fiberglass) whip properly mounted will beat
shortened and loaded antennas any day.

Best location would be dead center on the roof, but with a cab-over
camper you can't do that permanently, although you could use a
mag-mount antenna and place it on top of the camper when you have it
onboard.

Umm, don't think so Dick. Most of the time
campers are made of fiberglass. While a whip
mounted where you said will perform, sometimes
most people don't want to drive around knocking
tree limbs down, hitting low bridges, unable to
go into garages & multi level parking lots.
That's why the suggestion for a shorter antenna,
like a Wilson mag mount or some other side or
mirror location for the antenna. If he mounts a
102 on the back bumper, a Wilson or a shorter
antenna mounted in a higher, better location will
out perform it.

Landshark


--
Hard things are put in our way,
not to stop us, but to call out our
courage and strength.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

..
Everything was done on the same frequency. It doesn't matter what
frequency the receiving antenna was resonant on. All the received
signals were treated the same.

True.



It sure does matter an antenna may have a low swr on channel 20(under
1.5) but be resonant on 26.835, and if the recieve antenna is resonant at
or near 26.835 what have you got? Was the recieve antenna tested?


Explain that dumbass, the same receive antenna was used for all the
tests. The SWR or resonant frequency doesn't matter as long as its
not changed during the tests.

Let me phrase it in a way that your simple mind would understand;

Do you think the receive antenna knew which antenna was transmitting
and some how changed its parameters?

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:58:22 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , Lancer
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:32:44 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
:



At 13 miles, another issue you will have is radiation angle. I don't
suppose you measured that either, did you? Do you know why that is
important? Because you don't state the HAAT of the antenna for either
the transmitter or the receiver, nor do you state whether the 13/24
miles was flat. If you just wanted to get a relative signal strength
reading without the confound of HAAT, why did you stroll 13 miles
instead of only half a mile or so? All you needed to do was clear the
near-field, which most engineers consider to be six wavelengths for HF
(or 66 meters, a far cry from 13 miles where a lot can happen
inbetween).

There are WAY too many issues with your test, and any or all of them
could have been a factor in your inconsistent readings. Looking back
an those threads, it appears that you already knew that, too.


I agree 100% Frank, you raise many many valid points as to why this test is
really bougus.

Which points? You don't have a clue what Frank even posted.

Even if he doesn't, he should be able to recognize Tnom's subjectification of a
supposedly objective experiment, his inattention to detail, the lack of critical
information, and his failure (unwillingness?) to disclose his previous test and
it's contradictory results. That, in my book, is sufficient to conclude that
Tnom's tests are bogus. In fact, the results of the second test are almost -too-
good, skewed out of proportion with reality -- almost like he was reading the
S-meter backwards -- and extrapolation of those results suggest that the rubber
ducky is the most efficient antenna design, second only to the theoretical dummy
load! It doesn't take an engineer to see that much.



Maybe he should be able to recognize a lot of things, I doubt that he
even fully read what you posted.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

wrote in :


2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only assume
that they were different. Regardless, what was the forward power
with each antenna, and why was that not listed?

No need



Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength or
lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer doesn't
know it.


Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.

In , lancer wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

wrote in :


2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only assume
that they were different. Regardless, what was the forward power
with each antenna, and why was that not listed?

No need



Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength or
lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer doesn't
know it.


Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.

Many times they don't. That's why I tell people to buy or build a simple field
strength meter and tune the antenna with that. Then get a cheap SWR meter to
keep inline just to indicate any antenna failures.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:08:42 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in
:

It sure does matter an antenna may have a low swr on channel 20(under
1.5) but be resonant on 26.835, and if the recieve antenna is resonant
at or near 26.835 what have you got? Was the recieve antenna tested?


Explain that dumbass, the same receive antenna was used for all the
tests. The SWR or resonant frequency doesn't matter as long as its
not changed during the tests.

Let me phrase it in a way that your simple mind would understand;

Do you think the receive antenna knew which antenna was transmitting
and some how changed its parameters?





wow thats all you could find wrong with what i said?
Let me educate you assclown, the recieve antenna is resonant on 26.835
antenna "a" has a low swr across the band but is actually resonant on 26.835,
rememebr resonance is not lowest swr. Antenna B has a low swr across the
band but is resonant on 27.405, which antenna will the recieve antenna hear
better?

No, now go back and read what you originally wrote, and what Tnom
wrote that you responded too. It doesn't matter what frequency the
receive antenna is resonant at as long as you don't change anything
with the receive antenna during the test. The receive antenna could
care less what frequency the transmit antenna is resonant at.

So you trying to everyone that anytime some changes their tuning on
their antenna, everyone else has to retune their antenna to receive
them properly?

Your a joke, and so are your ideas.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:10:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in news:3f9a7f04.175828998
:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

wrote in :


2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only assume
that they were different. Regardless, what was the forward power
with each antenna, and why was that not listed?

No need



Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength or
lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer doesn't
know it.


Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.


Better yet why don't you tell me why they do occur then, prove how smart
you think you are. LOL Go wash off assclown

No, your the one that pointed it out, enlighten the group. You
already said I didn't know, so explain it.

BTW, you just made a point for Tnom's data that he posted.

Go figure.

In , lancer wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:10:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in news:3f9a7f04.175828998
:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

wrote in :


2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only assume
that they were different. Regardless, what was the forward power
with each antenna, and why was that not listed?

No need



Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength or
lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer doesn't
know it.


Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.


Better yet why don't you tell me why they do occur then, prove how smart
you think you are. LOL Go wash off assclown

No, your the one that pointed it out.....

No, I'm the one that pointed it out a long time ago. And there are several
reasons why it happens, but the most significant is because nothing in a mobile
installation is perfectly grounded. The RF ground in a vehicle is the vehicle
itself, and at the frequency of interest (27 MHz), it rarely shows the nice low
impedance needed for a good ground plane, or 1/4 wave resonance to work as a
counterpoise. So your meter might show a perfect 1:1 match, but the meter will
be wrong because it, too, is referenced to the same imperfect ground. The -only-
way to be sure you are getting the most signal from your antenna is to actually
measure the signal, and you do that with a field strength meter. You can see the
difference for yourself by doing your own test. Assuming you don't have a dummy
load for an antenna, you will see that the best match does not necessarily mean
the best field strength.

I thought this topic was already hashed out a long time ago.....







-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

lancer wrote:




Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.

It has to do with the radiation resistance of the antenna, suggest you
get some books on antenna theroy and read about it.

Are you saying a recieve antenna tuned for 49 mhz will give the same
meter reading from a 49 mhz antenna as one tuned for 27 mhz. If that was
true why the different need for recieve antennas just hook up any length
of wire. Now will it be a night and day difference I don't know but here
you have a guy testing antennas trying to eliminate variables, looking at
a meter on a 31" tv. Is that the best you can do is argue this point? why
not tell us how max FS doesnt mean lowest SWR.

How dense...or is it argumentive can one be? Let me clarify.

The receive beams gamma was adjusted for a best match around the
CB ssb channels. A typical way to set up a antenna.

The transmitting antennas where all set for the best (nulled) SWR
at the same CB ssb channels. All the antennas achieved a 1.5
to 1 or better match at the SWR null. A typical way to adjust a
antenna.

Even if I replaced the resonant beam with a coathanger the S-meter
would still yield the same gain ranking of the antennas.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:21:06 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in
:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:08:42 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in
:

It sure does matter an antenna may have a low swr on channel
20(under 1.5) but be resonant on 26.835, and if the recieve antenna
is resonant at or near 26.835 what have you got? Was the recieve
antenna tested?


Explain that dumbass, the same receive antenna was used for all the
tests. The SWR or resonant frequency doesn't matter as long as its
not changed during the tests.

Let me phrase it in a way that your simple mind would understand;

Do you think the receive antenna knew which antenna was transmitting
and some how changed its parameters?





wow thats all you could find wrong with what i said?
Let me educate you assclown, the recieve antenna is resonant on 26.835
antenna "a" has a low swr across the band but is actually resonant on
26.835, rememebr resonance is not lowest swr. Antenna B has a low swr
across the band but is resonant on 27.405, which antenna will the
recieve antenna hear better?

No, now go back and read what you originally wrote, and what Tnom
wrote that you responded too. It doesn't matter what frequency the
receive antenna is resonant at as long as you don't change anything
with the receive antenna during the test. The receive antenna could
care less what frequency the transmit antenna is resonant at.

So you trying to everyone that anytime some changes their tuning on
their antenna, everyone else has to retune their antenna to receive
them properly?



Are you saying a recieve antenna tuned for 49 mhz will give the same
meter reading from a 49 mhz antenna as one tuned for 27 mhz. If that was
true why the different need for recieve antennas just hook up any length
of wire. Now will it be a night and day difference I don't know but here
you have a guy testing antennas trying to eliminate variables, looking at
a meter on a 31" tv. Is that the best you can do is argue this point? why
not tell us how max FS doesnt mean lowest SWR.


Do you have a comprehension problem? Thats not what I said dumbass.
He did eliminate a variable, he used the same receive antenna for all
his tests. It doesn't matter what he used for a receive antenna as
long as he used the same one every time. Are you really that damn
dense?

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:11:58 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , lancer wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:10:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in news:3f9a7f04.175828998
:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

wrote in :


2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only assume
that they were different. Regardless, what was the forward power
with each antenna, and why was that not listed?

No need



Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength or
lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer doesn't
know it.


Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.


Better yet why don't you tell me why they do occur then, prove how smart
you think you are. LOL Go wash off assclown

No, your the one that pointed it out.....

No, I'm the one that pointed it out a long time ago. And there are several
reasons why it happens, but the most significant is because nothing in a mobile
installation is perfectly grounded. The RF ground in a vehicle is the vehicle
itself, and at the frequency of interest (27 MHz), it rarely shows the nice low
impedance needed for a good ground plane, or 1/4 wave resonance to work as a
counterpoise. So your meter might show a perfect 1:1 match, but the meter will
be wrong because it, too, is referenced to the same imperfect ground. The -only-
way to be sure you are getting the most signal from your antenna is to actually
measure the signal, and you do that with a field strength meter. You can see the
difference for yourself by doing your own test. Assuming you don't have a dummy
load for an antenna, you will see that the best match does not necessarily mean
the best field strength.

I thought this topic was already hashed out a long time ago.....



No Frank, Neil said it he

Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength or
lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer doesn't
know it.

I wanted him to explain it too me, since he acted like he knew the
answer and wanted to explain it too, since according to him, I didn't
know it. Quit bailing him out, let him back his big mouth up.

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:15:31 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
:

In , lancer
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:10:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in news:3f9a7f04.175828998
:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

wrote in
news:kcobpvcfh95lkjo845230puh96dikk3osk@4ax. com:


2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only
assume that they were different. Regardless, what was the
forward power with each antenna, and why was that not listed?

No need



Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength
or lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer
doesn't know it.


Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.


Better yet why don't you tell me why they do occur then, prove how
smart you think you are. LOL Go wash off assclown

No, your the one that pointed it out.....

No, I'm the one that pointed it out a long time ago. And there are
several reasons why it happens, but the most significant is because
nothing in a mobile installation is perfectly grounded. The RF ground
in a vehicle is the vehicle itself, and at the frequency of interest
(27 MHz), it rarely shows the nice low impedance needed for a good
ground plane, or 1/4 wave resonance to work as a counterpoise. So your
meter might show a perfect 1:1 match, but the meter will be wrong
because it, too, is referenced to the same imperfect ground. The
-only- way to be sure you are getting the most signal from your
antenna is to actually measure the signal, and you do that with a
field strength meter. You can see the difference for yourself by doing
your own test. Assuming you don't have a dummy load for an antenna,
you will see that the best match does not necessarily mean the best
field strength.

I thought this topic was already hashed out a long time ago.....


I thought so to Frank, as he asked me to explain, perhaps he doesn't
understand. I also see he did not provide any info to prove that what I
said was wrong.

Sure I did, your just don't undesrtand. Isn't that nice that Frank
bailed you out?

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:19 -0600, JJ
wrote:

lancer wrote:




Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.

It has to do with the radiation resistance of the antenna, suggest you
get some books on antenna theroy and read about it.


Will you please quit answering for him? I suggest you keep up with
the thread.

In , Lancer
wrote:

snip
I wanted him to explain it too me, since he acted like he knew the
answer and wanted to explain it too, since according to him, I didn't
know it. Quit bailing him out, let him back his big mouth up.

Gee, I didn't know this was your private thread. I'll ask before I reply next
time, ok?






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:56:00 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , Lancer
wrote:

snip
I wanted him to explain it too me, since he acted like he knew the
answer and wanted to explain it too, since according to him, I didn't
know it. Quit bailing him out, let him back his big mouth up.

Gee, I didn't know this was your private thread. I'll ask before I reply next
time, ok?



Come on, you know thats not what I meant. If it sounded that way,
sorry, thats wasn't my intention.

He made a remark, and I just wanted him to back up his post.

ok?

Frank said:
"Gee, I didn't know this was your private thread. I'll ask before I
reply nexttime, ok?"

So Tnom said this................................
Seeing how according to you we don't have follow normal thread
protocol then I will go ahead and butt in. Here are three quotes by
Frank from this thread, and a suggestion below.

*******************************************
1.

I'm sorry that you are upset. The numbers speak for themselves. If you
don't like them then get off your ass and run a test yourself.

Frank said:
"I have, and I don't have to post fudged numbers to prove it. Anyone
can just get on the air and find out for themselves."

************************************************
2.

This has been shown before. Get off your fat ass and do an actual
test. You will find that a Stainless Steel 102" whip can be marginally
beat. You can not realize this by reading a book! Get off your ass.

Frank said:
"My "fat ass" has done this test more than once, more than twice....
If, in fact, you do a PROPER test, eliminating ALL reasonable
confounds and recording ALL the data, you WILL find that the 9 foot
whip just can't be beat, as my "fat ass" has proven more than a DOZEN
times before while teaching students how to map an antenna field
(which, BTW, was a lab demo for a number of different issues, not
just antenna types and field strength measurements)."

************************************************** ***
3.

Not needed. I know the truth because I have used the antennas.

Frank said:
"You assume that nobody else has done any testing for themselves. You
are wrong."

Here's your assignment for tomorrow. Get off your fat ass and test the
antennas.

Frank said:
"Once again --- and try to comprehend it this time --- I already
have."

************************************************** **

Good. Then you will not have any excuse for not posting YOUR test
parameters and YOUR results quantified in numbers.

Don't forget what this beef is about. It is about whether or whether
not a 102 or 108" Stainless Steel whip can be beat by a shorter
antenna in a typical installation. This beef is not about whether the
ultimate 1/4 wave whip can be beat by the ultimate shorter antenna.
It can not. I have always said this when asked. If you followed my
past tests then you would know that I have already shown that a one
inch thick, 9 foot long silver antenna will beat everything shorter
that I have ever tested.


Seeing how you are so adamant about the superiority of the 102/8" SS
whip then you should be able to prove it's superiority over the same
types of antennas that I have tested in the past. I don't think you
have ever tested those antennas.... X-terminator and similar types.

I'll be waiting......................probably forever.

In , Lancer
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:56:00 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , Lancer
wrote:

snip
I wanted him to explain it too me, since he acted like he knew the
answer and wanted to explain it too, since according to him, I didn't
know it. Quit bailing him out, let him back his big mouth up.

Gee, I didn't know this was your private thread. I'll ask before I reply next
time, ok?



Come on, you know thats not what I meant. If it sounded that way,
sorry, thats wasn't my intention.

He made a remark, and I just wanted him to back up his post.

ok?

Ok, but I'm not even reading his posts anymore, so it probably won't happen
again anyway.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Frank Gilliland wrote in message ...
In , wrote:

snip
At 27 MHz, any antenna shorter then 5 feet is a waste of time.
snip

Not true. There are antennas at five feet that will match or even
surpass a 102" SS whip.

B*llsh*t.


Don't beat about the bush Frank... just say what you think ;~)


Brainbuster.

Frabk Gillland wrote:
Ok, but I'm not even reading his posts

anymore, so it probably won't happen again

anyway.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----


_
LOL,,,you must feel this is your own private thread to somehow feel that
another person gives an iota who you respond to or who you "plonk".
Citing your own behavior is narcissistic.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:03:39 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

Lancer wrote in
:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:15:31 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
:

In , lancer
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 15:10:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in news:3f9a7f04.175828998
:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:18:07 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

wrote in
news:kcobpvcfh95lkjo845230puh96dikk3osk@4a x.com:


2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only
assume that they were different. Regardless, what was the
forward power with each antenna, and why was that not listed?

No need



Sure there is a need was the antenna tuned for max field strength
or lowest SWR. There is a difference you know even though Lancer
doesn't know it.


Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.


Better yet why don't you tell me why they do occur then, prove how
smart you think you are. LOL Go wash off assclown

No, your the one that pointed it out.....

No, I'm the one that pointed it out a long time ago. And there are
several reasons why it happens, but the most significant is because
nothing in a mobile installation is perfectly grounded. The RF ground
in a vehicle is the vehicle itself, and at the frequency of interest
(27 MHz), it rarely shows the nice low impedance needed for a good
ground plane, or 1/4 wave resonance to work as a counterpoise. So
your
meter might show a perfect 1:1 match, but the meter will be wrong
because it, too, is referenced to the same imperfect ground. The
-only- way to be sure you are getting the most signal from your
antenna is to actually measure the signal, and you do that with a
field strength meter. You can see the difference for yourself by
doing
your own test. Assuming you don't have a dummy load for an antenna,
you will see that the best match does not necessarily mean the best
field strength.

I thought this topic was already hashed out a long time ago.....


I thought so to Frank, as he asked me to explain, perhaps he doesn't
understand. I also see he did not provide any info to prove that what I
said was wrong.

Sure I did, your just don't undesrtand. Isn't that nice that Frank
bailed you out?


Well say it again, please explain how Max FS is at lowest SWR. Since I
have said the opposite. Hey this is an open thread Frank can chime in
when he want's. I certainly didn't ask him to back up what I said, but he
is smart enough to know that it was correct, unlike you.

I've never said that, do you have a tough time understanding what was
posted?

This is what I posted:

Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.


Explain why lowest SWR and max field strength don't occur at the same
point. You stated that you knew, now please explain.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:04:15 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

Lancer wrote in
:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:19 -0600, JJ
wrote:

lancer wrote:




Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.

It has to do with the radiation resistance of the antenna, suggest you
get some books on antenna theroy and read about it.


Will you please quit answering for him? I suggest you keep up with
the thread.


When are you gonna start answering for yourself?


When are you going to answer my original question?

Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.

If you don't know, thats fine, admit it.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 14:38:58 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

lancer wrote in news:3f9a1068.713315
:

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:04:15 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

Lancer wrote in
:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:07:19 -0600, JJ
wrote:

lancer wrote:




Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.

It has to do with the radiation resistance of the antenna, suggest
you
get some books on antenna theroy and read about it.


Will you please quit answering for him? I suggest you keep up with
the thread.


When are you gonna start answering for yourself?


When are you going to answer my original question?

Why don't you explain why max field strength and lowest SWR
don't
occur at the same time? As you have stated that you know.

If you don't know, thats fine, admit it.



Thats what you should do then, admit that you don't know and that you
want uncle george to school you.

Sure, are you George?