'Doc wrote:



Lancer,
I'm aware of that. It's too bad that most of
that discussion deals with misconceptions.
'Doc

Doc;
Which misconceptions?

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. 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!



It would be interesting to see the 102" fiberglass against the S/S whip.

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.

Thanks Doc....I have a couple layine around...I might try to shorten one of
them

wrote:
Ther's no misconception.

Nope. Just a bunch of hoo ha, and arguments about field strength
meter readings.

I'm gonna buy an X-terminator, and compare it in the real world
application. If it's near as good as the 108"er, I'll be happy.

Thanks for the tip. Tnom.

Lancer wrote:
It would be interesting to see the 102" fiberglass against the S/S whip.

With trees?

"(Scott Unit 69)" wrote:
You are spreading the misconception that your tests are accuarte and the
results are repeatable.

You're posting as Scott now. WTF is wrong with you?

wrote:
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.

The misconception is that you don't need to look at the book. How do you
know what to llok for if you don't read the book? Your test results are not
repeatable by anyone else, there fore they are invalid. The misconception
is also that your measurements were accurate. Fudging numbers on an s-meter
is "keyclown science".

On 28 Oct 2003 00:24:47 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

wrote:
Ther's no misconception.

Nope. Just a bunch of hoo ha, and arguments about field strength
meter readings.

I'm gonna buy an X-terminator, and compare it in the real world
application. If it's near as good as the 108"er, I'll be happy.

Thanks for the tip. Tnom.

If you get the opportunity to swap the 108" SS with the X-Terminator
feel free to report the results. One way or the other.

I'd love to see someone else do a test. Be forewarned. If your results
are in favor of the X-Terminator you'll get flack for reporting the
results. Your test will be examined and will be deemed as being
flawed.

If your test shows the 108" SS as the superior antenna then the
obvious will happen. Your post will be accepted as legit and there
will be no argument over the results. Even though the test parameters
were the same.

wrote:
On 28 Oct 2003 00:24:47 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

wrote:
Ther's no misconception.

Nope. Just a bunch of hoo ha, and arguments about field strength
meter readings.

I'm gonna buy an X-terminator, and compare it in the real world
application. If it's near as good as the 108"er, I'll be happy.

Thanks for the tip. Tnom.

If you get the opportunity to swap the 108" SS with the X-Terminator
feel free to report the results. One way or the other.

I'd love to see someone else do a test. Be forewarned. If your results
are in favor of the X-Terminator you'll get flack for reporting the
results. Your test will be examined and will be deemed as being
flawed.

If your test shows the 108" SS as the superior antenna then the
obvious will happen. Your post will be accepted as legit and there
will be no argument over the results. Even though the test parameters
were the same.

My tests are all by ear, so I won't be providing any data. I'll
know if I like it or not, and it's cheap.