Yes.
'Doc

tnom,
And the next question is, 'Gain in relation to what?'.
'Doc

On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:18:19 -0600, 'Doc wrote:



tnom,
And the next question is, 'Gain in relation to what?'.

Gain in relation to the 102" SS

Getting back to the misconception aspect....................

You said yes to "Can a shorter antenna show more gain than the
102" SS.

Now the final question. Where's the misconception I am spreading?

Frank Gilliland wrote:
In , "(Scott Unit 69)"
wrote:


wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:54:25 -0600, 'Doc wrote:

I would suggest you take a look at exactly what
I said. Don't 'read into it' any more than what's
there, especially about the 'normal' trash that goes
on in this NG.
'Doc

I read exactly what you said.............
Something about dragging out misconcepts.
It seems to me that you may be the one that
believes in misconcepts. There is a easy way
to determine this. It's done by asking you a
simple yes or a no question.

Do you believe a shorter antenna can be made
to show more gain than the 102" SS whip.?
yes or no

I bet the results of your test were unrepeatable. I think your X-terminator
generated a minor lobe in the direction of the recieve antenna due to the
coils and a funky RF ground and other variations in the pattern.

I think he fudged the numbers.

I don't think he fudged the numbers, I think his readings were inaccurate
due to poor testing procedures.

Frank Gilliland wrote in message . ..
In , "(Scott Unit 69)"
wrote:


wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 10:54:25 -0600, 'Doc wrote:

I would suggest you take a look at exactly what
I said. Don't 'read into it' any more than what's
there, especially about the 'normal' trash that goes
on in this NG.
'Doc

I read exactly what you said.............
Something about dragging out misconcepts.
It seems to me that you may be the one that
believes in misconcepts. There is a easy way
to determine this. It's done by asking you a
simple yes or a no question.

Do you believe a shorter antenna can be made
to show more gain than the 102" SS whip.?
yes or no

I bet the results of your test were unrepeatable. I think your X-terminator
generated a minor lobe in the direction of the recieve antenna due to the
coils and a funky RF ground and other variations in the pattern.

I think he fudged the numbers. Like I said, if anyone has one of those
X-terminators in my area I'll be more than happy to run a test. In fact, I can
run it with a few other CB antennas I have laying around, including 102"
fiberglass and magnetic SS whips, a short center-loader from RS, a couple
helical dummy-loads, and I even think there's a rubber-ducky in the scrap heap.
And I can test them properly, mapping a field from my truck to just outside the
near-field, using an unmodified AM radio (unmodulated), no QD connectors, tuned
with an FSM, measurements for forward and reflected power, and DC voltage
measured at the radio during transmit. Hell, I'll even punch a hole in the roof
for this test!






-----= 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! =-----


damn....frank has radio antennas in his shop........imagine
that..........geez.......i thought frankie wasn't a ham or a cber and
didn't operate any radio equipment.........of course according to his
words.......but somehow he has radio antennas.........

damn....frank has radio antennas in his shop........imagine
that..........geez.......i thought frankie wasn't a ham or a cber and
didn't operate any radio equipment.........of course according to his
words.......but somehow he has radio antennas.........

I think Frank is not so frank. I think Frank is actually a oxyMORON.

In , (gw)
wrote:

damn....frank has radio antennas in his shop....

And why not? I work on a lot of radios. Makes sense to have a few antennas
around, don't it?

....imagine
that..........geez.......i thought frankie wasn't a ham or a cber and
didn't operate any radio equipment....

Was that -your- thought or somebody else's?

.....of course according to his
words....

Really? Where did I ever say that I'm not a CBer, or that I don't operate any
radio equipment? I didn't. Learn to read.

...but somehow he has radio antennas.........

Don't you have some fish to clean?







-----= 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! =-----

Can anyone tell me how to shorten a fiberglass whip from the bottom??? Is the
brass end just epoxied on??
Thanks
Buck

Buck,
Yes, the fibreglass rod is just glued into the base,
then the inner conductor is soldered to the base. I
assume it's epoxy but I can't say that for sure.
'Doc

wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 13:18:19 -0600, 'Doc wrote:



tnom,
And the next question is, 'Gain in relation to what?'.

Gain in relation to the 102" SS

Getting back to the misconception aspect....................

You said yes to "Can a shorter antenna show more gain than the
102" SS.

Now the final question. Where's the misconception I am spreading?

You are spreading the misconception that your tests are accuarte and the
results are repeatable.