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.