On 27 Oct 2003 19:18:25 GMT, "(Scott Unit 69)"
wrote:


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.


My tests (plural) were made as accurate as any CB'er could do with
common equipment. Are you suggesting only professionals with
professional equipment and a test range or chamber test antennas? Are
you suggesting that we just read the book and leave it at that? My
tests were accurate enough to show a consistent gain ranking of the
antennas. Even though one test showed a different reported ranking
between two signal readers they were still repeatable in the sense
that each time the 102"SS was compared to others it fell short to
specific antennas each and ever time.

You seem to forget one thing. I originally tested the X-Terminator to
de-bunk it. I could not. I could of just kept my mouth shut. I am sure
others in this group would of done just that, but I decided to post
the numbers anyways. The numbers don't lie.

Where's the misconception? I never suggested a tolerance to the tests.
I was up front and detailed about the conditions. All I did is post
the numbers.

What's accurate?...........The gain ranking
What's repeatable?.............The 102" stainless being beat by some
shorter antennas.

Ther's no misconception.