Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #122   Report Post  
Old June 18th 04, 09:14 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The stated objective of your tests was to evaluate and quantify the
performance of various antennas, drawing conclusions that could be
extended beyond your testing conditions. However, the technical level
of the tests exceeded the limitations of your equipment, education and
experience. Your methods were less than scientific, your data was
superficial and contradictory, and your conclusions were few and
highly subjective. When the data from your first test didn't meet your
expectations you provided excuses. Your second test proved that your
excuses were wrong, so you made new excuses. Your data could not be
quantified, yet you proclaimed that x antenna was better than y
antenna was better than z antenna. You clearly failed to meet the
objective of your tests. You don't know why you failed, so you made
excuses for your failure. When you bragged about your tests in the
newsgroup I evaluated your failures one by one. You then blamed -me-
because you can't accept and correct your own failures.


I only stated the obvious.

1. After eliminating human error the A/B test were repeatable.
2. The SS steel whip could be beat by shorter antennas
3. The non believers could only sight theory and would never
do the test themselves.

OTOH, I did a simple test for fun, posted my observations, and
provided my very limited conclusion WITH WHICH YOU AGREED. So
according to -YOU- my test was both valid and conclusive.


I only agree that if your "hair method" test is valid then my tests
were even more valid.

Yet your obsession with me pushed you to try -- once again -- to
discredit me in a technical discussion. And once again you failed. And
once again you will blame me for your failure. If anything you should
be asking questions instead of trying to act like some sort of radio
guru (which you definitely are not).

NOW do you see how this works?


Yes I do. You still don't understand that a 9' SS whip can be beat by
shorter antennas.
  #127   Report Post  
Old June 20th 04, 06:25 AM
Frank Gilliland
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In , wrote:


The stated objective of your tests was to evaluate and quantify the
performance of various antennas, drawing conclusions that could be
extended beyond your testing conditions. However, the technical level
of the tests exceeded the limitations of your equipment, education and
experience. Your methods were less than scientific, your data was
superficial and contradictory, and your conclusions were few and
highly subjective. When the data from your first test didn't meet your
expectations you provided excuses. Your second test proved that your
excuses were wrong, so you made new excuses. Your data could not be
quantified, yet you proclaimed that x antenna was better than y
antenna was better than z antenna. You clearly failed to meet the
objective of your tests. You don't know why you failed, so you made
excuses for your failure. When you bragged about your tests in the
newsgroup I evaluated your failures one by one. You then blamed -me-
because you can't accept and correct your own failures.


I only stated the obvious.

1. After eliminating human error the A/B test were repeatable.



If the "human error" is inability to read a 5-LED S-meter, sure, it's
easy to eliminate the error by not reading the meter.


2. The SS steel whip could be beat by shorter antennas



Only antennas that were designed using temporal physics.


3. The non believers could only sight theory and would never
do the test themselves.



This is not a religious debate; i.e, "believers" vs "non-believers".
Your test was supposed to be a scientific experiment with conclusions
based on empirical data. You formed your conclusions without that
empirical data.



OTOH, I did a simple test for fun, posted my observations, and
provided my very limited conclusion WITH WHICH YOU AGREED. So
according to -YOU- my test was both valid and conclusive.


I only agree that if your "hair method" test is valid then my tests
were even more valid.



You said: "Such an antenna always has fields in both polarizations. I
never stated it didn't". You agreed with my -only- conclusion that the
antenna under test had both horizontal and vertical polarization. You
therefore validated my test, my data, and my conclusion.


Yet your obsession with me pushed you to try -- once again -- to
discredit me in a technical discussion. And once again you failed. And
once again you will blame me for your failure. If anything you should
be asking questions instead of trying to act like some sort of radio
guru (which you definitely are not).

NOW do you see how this works?


Yes I do. You still don't understand that a 9' SS whip can be beat by
shorter antennas.



It can't. Not unless it is has multiple elements or it's made from a
superconductor. Also, check out Landshark's link.






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
  #128   Report Post  
Old June 20th 04, 03:16 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default

snip
NOW do you see how this works?


Yes I do. You still don't understand that a 9' SS whip can be beat by
shorter antennas.



It can't. Not unless it is has multiple elements or it's made from a
superconductor. Also, check out Landshark's link.


It only can't be beat if you're stubborn enough to never test it
for yourself. You fit that description, therefore only one thing
can be said.

Get bent
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. Serge Stroobandt, ON4BAA Antenna 8 February 24th 11 10:22 PM
Ideas for a home built 2meter/440 dual band base antenna Ralph Blach Antenna 11 August 19th 04 12:27 AM
FS: Connectors/Adapters/Meters/Etc. Ben Equipment 0 January 1st 04 02:55 PM
Need HF / Mobile Antenna Recommendation Craig Buck Antenna 3 August 10th 03 03:49 PM
Wanted: SWAN Mobile Antenna Info Norm VE3CZI Antenna 4 July 18th 03 10:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017