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!

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".



One thing for sure. Your response is invalid because you have no data
to back up your claim. Fudging your opinion without any real data is
foolish.

Run a test. Until you do your dispute of my test results mean nothing.

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?

Lancer,
Using the list that was posted, items 3 through 8.
'Doc

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.

As we all know under Idea conductions a 1/4 wave whip will out do any
loaded antenna.
But in the real world a loaded antenna ( shortened ) mounted in the center
of the roof will work much better in ALL directions than a 1/4 wave whip
mounted on the bumper, or the rear of the mobile. If the long whip was
mounted on the left back side, the best direction will be to the right
front, whereas a center mounted antenna on the roof, even with its somewhat
more loss will work better in all directions, as the mobile would not have
to be turned like a beam. So the point is I prefer
a good trunk mounted, or a center mounted antenna over the 1/4 whip.

Been there done that.

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

With trees?

Duh!!! shredded........................

Landshark


--
Hard things are put in our way,
not to stop us, but to call out our
courage and strength.

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