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?