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.

It's a Catch-22 and tnom knows it because -no one- could ever duplicate tnom's
test conditions, the wooded terrain, the recieving antenna, etc. etc. so
whatever results you got won't jive with his. Lke I said, it's "keyclown
science" and not real engineering he practices.

"(Scott Unit 69)" wrote:
Lke I said, it's
"keyclown science" and not real engineering he practices.

SHOCKING!

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.

It's a Catch-22 and tnom knows it because -no one- could ever duplicate tnom's
test conditions, the wooded terrain, the recieving antenna, etc. etc. so
whatever results you got won't jive with his. Lke I said, it's "keyclown
science" and not real engineering he practices.

Who's science is flawed. The one who takes for granted that a 102" SS
is king, or the one who runs numerous tests with the same results to
refute it?

wrote:

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.

It's a Catch-22 and tnom knows it because -no one- could ever duplicate
tnom's
test conditions, the wooded terrain, the recieving antenna, etc. etc. so
whatever results you got won't jive with his. Lke I said, it's "keyclown
science" and not real engineering he practices.

Who's science is flawed. The one who takes for granted that a 102" SS
is king, or the one who runs numerous tests with the same results to
refute it?

So what do you think is creating the "gain" for the X-terminator? The loading
coils? The chrome coating? :-)

On 28 Oct 2003 04:10:28 GMT, "(Scott Unit 69)"
wrote:


wrote:

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.

It's a Catch-22 and tnom knows it because -no one- could ever duplicate
tnom's
test conditions, the wooded terrain, the recieving antenna, etc. etc. so
whatever results you got won't jive with his. Lke I said, it's "keyclown
science" and not real engineering he practices.

Who's science is flawed. The one who takes for granted that a 102" SS
is king, or the one who runs numerous tests with the same results to
refute it?

So what do you think is creating the "gain" for the X-terminator? The loading
coils? The chrome coating? :-)

I really don't know. I would suggest it does a better job at

3. Thicker antennas perform marginally better than thinner.

4. More conductive antenna stock makes a marginal difference
over less conductive antenna stock.

But it really doesn't matter. The numbers show all I have to know.

tnom wrote;

I really don't know. I would suggest it does a better job at

3. Thicker antennas perform marginally better than thinner.

4. More conductive antenna stock makes a marginal difference
over less conductive antenna stock.


These are part of those 'misconception's I was talking
about. That "marginally better" ought to read 'no practical
difference', and that "marginal difference" ought to read
'absolutely no difference at HF'.
The 'thickness'/diameter of conductors can and ~is~
described
scientifically (repeatable or reproducable results). At the
frequency you are talking about, that difference in
'thickness'
would have to be on the order of several inches. Not
fractions
of an inch.
The conductivity of the material used for the antennas has
so little bearing on their radiation efficiency at HF that
it's
absolutely rediculous to worry about. Even at UHF / SHF it
isn't a problem.


But it really doesn't matter.

Just about the only thing that you've said that is
'right'.
'Doc