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.