In , wrote:


Many times...........even tested them.


Sorry your tests results were debunked by Frank in the xterminator
thread, you are a voodoo tech

Frank never tested any of the antennas.


I just tested my 9' whip (mounted on the roo-guard of my Dodge). Tied
it back so the top was parallel with the ground (pointing East, if
that makes a difference). Measurements were compared to the antenna
straight up.......;

SWR didn't change at all, and vertically polarized field strength
dropped by a hair. However, horizontally polarized field strength made
a huge jump to the good. Subjectively, I listened to the toilet bowl
while pulling on the lanyard. Some weak signals disappeared while
others came in that weren't there before. Let the whip go back to
vertical and the old signals came back while the new signals were
lost.

Looks like it's a compromise situation.


Frank as well as you still
believes the earth is flat.


http://www.art.com/asp/sp.asp?PD=10036654&RFID=490797







-----= 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! =-----

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:22:33 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , wrote:


Many times...........even tested them.


Sorry your tests results were debunked by Frank in the xterminator
thread, you are a voodoo tech

Frank never tested any of the antennas.


I just tested my 9' whip (mounted on the roo-guard of my Dodge). Tied
it back so the top was parallel with the ground (pointing East, if
that makes a difference). Measurements were compared to the antenna
straight up.......;

SWR didn't change at all, and vertically polarized field strength
dropped by a hair. However, horizontally polarized field strength made
a huge jump to the good. Subjectively, I listened to the toilet bowl
while pulling on the lanyard. Some weak signals disappeared while
others came in that weren't there before. Let the whip go back to
vertical and the old signals came back while the new signals were
lost.

Looks like it's a compromise situation.


Frank
Did you try it in Barney Phife mode? The start of this thread was
on car, it was suggested that you tie it down like a bow. Bows are
bent 180 degrees, so it would have to be tied down to the same level
as the base. I tried it and the minimum SWR point moved lower in
frequency.
Modeling it showed that the take off angle also increased. Maybe
causing the effect you were seeing.

Lancer wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:22:33 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , wrote:


Many times...........even tested them.


Sorry your tests results were debunked by Frank in the xterminator
thread, you are a voodoo tech

Frank never tested any of the antennas.


I just tested my 9' whip (mounted on the roo-guard of my Dodge). Tied
it back so the top was parallel with the ground (pointing East, if
that makes a difference). Measurements were compared to the antenna
straight up.......;

SWR didn't change at all, and vertically polarized field strength
dropped by a hair. However, horizontally polarized field strength made
a huge jump to the good. Subjectively, I listened to the toilet bowl
while pulling on the lanyard. Some weak signals disappeared while
others came in that weren't there before. Let the whip go back to
vertical and the old signals came back while the new signals were
lost.

Looks like it's a compromise situation.


Frank
Did you try it in Barney Phife mode? The start of this thread was
on car, it was suggested that you tie it down like a bow. Bows are
bent 180 degrees, so it would have to be tied down to the same level
as the base. I tried it and the minimum SWR point moved lower in
frequency.
Modeling it showed that the take off angle also increased. Maybe
causing the effect you were seeing.

Think you could talk flatside dx with it in that position? Which
direction did it talk best?

--
I won't retire, but I might retread.

On 16 Jun 2004 12:18:50 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

Lancer wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:22:33 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , wrote:


Many times...........even tested them.


Sorry your tests results were debunked by Frank in the xterminator
thread, you are a voodoo tech

Frank never tested any of the antennas.


I just tested my 9' whip (mounted on the roo-guard of my Dodge). Tied
it back so the top was parallel with the ground (pointing East, if
that makes a difference). Measurements were compared to the antenna
straight up.......;

SWR didn't change at all, and vertically polarized field strength
dropped by a hair. However, horizontally polarized field strength made
a huge jump to the good. Subjectively, I listened to the toilet bowl
while pulling on the lanyard. Some weak signals disappeared while
others came in that weren't there before. Let the whip go back to
vertical and the old signals came back while the new signals were
lost.

Looks like it's a compromise situation.


Frank
Did you try it in Barney Phife mode? The start of this thread was
on car, it was suggested that you tie it down like a bow. Bows are
bent 180 degrees, so it would have to be tied down to the same level
as the base. I tried it and the minimum SWR point moved lower in
frequency.
Modeling it showed that the take off angle also increased. Maybe
causing the effect you were seeing.

Think you could talk flatside dx with it in that position? Which
direction did it talk best?

Steve;
I didn't play with it all that much to see which direction it
talked the best. Modeling, showed that the Max Horizontal field is
broadside to the antenna and Max vertical is more inline with the
direction that its bent. Does your news server carry
alt.binaries.pictures.radio? I put a jpeg of it there.
Red is The Hor field, Black is the Vert

Lancer wrote:
Steve;
I didn't play with it all that much to see which direction it
talked the best. Modeling, showed that the Max Horizontal field is
broadside to the antenna and Max vertical is more inline with the
direction that its bent. Does your news server carry
alt.binaries.pictures.radio? I put a jpeg of it there.
Red is The Hor field, Black is the Vert

Cool..thanks.

--
I won't retire, but I might retread.

In , Lancer
wrote:

snip
Steve;
I didn't play with it all that much to see which direction it
talked the best. Modeling, showed that the Max Horizontal field is
broadside to the antenna and Max vertical is more inline with the
direction that its bent. Does your news server carry
alt.binaries.pictures.radio? I put a jpeg of it there.
Red is The Hor field, Black is the Vert


I got the day off so I took the truck out in the field, did a
Barney-bend to the windshield-wiper, and did a 10 degree (36-point)
field-strength test. Your jpeg is pretty close to what I got, except:
I see sharper lobes; the measured horizontal was weaker relative to
the vertical (possibly due to a higher take-off angle -- FSM was about
200' downrange), and; forward has more gain than aft (not forgetting
that my mount is on the bow). While driving the truck in a circle for
the tests I noticed that some stations would null.

My guess is that the Barney-bend acts like a loop antenna with its
characteristic null, but because it is only a half-loop it has a
horizontal component.

We really should summon Jay for this discussion.






-----= 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! =-----

In , Lancer
wrote:

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 19:22:33 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , wrote:


Many times...........even tested them.


Sorry your tests results were debunked by Frank in the xterminator
thread, you are a voodoo tech

Frank never tested any of the antennas.


I just tested my 9' whip (mounted on the roo-guard of my Dodge). Tied
it back so the top was parallel with the ground (pointing East, if
that makes a difference). Measurements were compared to the antenna
straight up.......;

SWR didn't change at all, and vertically polarized field strength
dropped by a hair. However, horizontally polarized field strength made
a huge jump to the good. Subjectively, I listened to the toilet bowl
while pulling on the lanyard. Some weak signals disappeared while
others came in that weren't there before. Let the whip go back to
vertical and the old signals came back while the new signals were
lost.

Looks like it's a compromise situation.


Frank
Did you try it in Barney Phife mode? The start of this thread was
on car, it was suggested that you tie it down like a bow. Bows are
bent 180 degrees, so it would have to be tied down to the same level
as the base. I tried it and the minimum SWR point moved lower in
frequency.


I didn't pull it over 180 degrees. I don't even know if it will bend
like that without taking off the spring. But it seems like if it goes
over 180 the top capacitance to ground would increase, as well as the
inductive reactance due to the bend, which might explain the drop in
frequency. IOW, it might result in a crude form of linear-loading.


Modeling it showed that the take off angle also increased. Maybe
causing the effect you were seeing.


Possible. But with a 90 degree bend it seems more likely that it was
just a polarity issue. I wouldn't even begin to guess how the polarity
would be affected in a 'Barney bend'.






-----= 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! =-----

From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
In , wrote:
Many times...........even tested them.

Sorry your tests results were debunked by

Frank in the xterminator thread, you are a

voodoo tech


(Frank never tested any of the antennas.)


I just tested my 9' whip (mounted on the

roo-guard of my Dodge). Tied it back so the

top was parallel with the ground (pointing

East, if that makes a difference).

Measurements were compared to the antenna
straight up.......;

SWR didn't change at all, and vertically

polarized field strength dropped by a hair.

However, horizontally polarized field strength

made a huge jump to the good. Subjectively, I

listened to the toilet bowl while pulling on the

lanyard.




But,,,,there is supposed to be no skip...


Some weak signals disappeared while others

came in that weren't there before. Let the whip
go back to vertical and the old signals came

back while the new signals were lost.

Looks like it's a compromise situation.
=A0



It is. You failed to account for, or at least detail, a myriad of
factors. Were you in a free zone? How near was the closest object? Did
you have a duplicate antenna in which to compare duplicate tests? Did
you repeat the test with the antenna on the opposite side of the
vehicle? Did you move the vehicle around? A single day's atmospheric
condition for a single test? One perfunctory test is meaningless in the
context of science.




(=A0Frank as well as you still
believes the earth is flat.)




-----=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =3D-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----=3D=3D Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =3D-----

In ,
(Nicolai Carpathia) wrote:

From: (Frank*Gilliland)
In , wrote:
Many times...........even tested them.

Sorry your tests results were debunked by

Frank in the xterminator thread, you are a

voodoo tech


(Frank never tested any of the antennas.)


I just tested my 9' whip (mounted on the

roo-guard of my Dodge). Tied it back so the

top was parallel with the ground (pointing

East, if that makes a difference).

Measurements were compared to the antenna
straight up.......;

SWR didn't change at all, and vertically

polarized field strength dropped by a hair.

However, horizontally polarized field strength

made a huge jump to the good. Subjectively, I

listened to the toilet bowl while pulling on the

lanyard.




But,,,,there is supposed to be no skip...


Who said anything about skip, Twist?


Some weak signals disappeared while others

came in that weren't there before. Let the whip
go back to vertical and the old signals came

back while the new signals were lost.

Looks like it's a compromise situation.
*



It is. You failed to account for, or at least detail, a myriad of
factors. Were you in a free zone?


No, I pay taxes just like every other homeowner.


How near was the closest object?


The curb was right next to the truck. Gee, maybe that messed up my
test.....


Did
you have a duplicate antenna in which to compare duplicate tests?


Yes I did. Did I use it? No.


Did
you repeat the test with the antenna on the opposite side of the
vehicle?


The antenna not mounted on either side of the vehicle. It was mounted
on the front of the vehicle, which I clearly stated and you couldn't
comprehend because of your communication deficit.


Did you move the vehicle around?


Why yes, it started break-dancing as soon as I keyed the mic.


A single day's atmospheric
condition for a single test?


Sunny, 74 degrees, 20% humidity, 29.96 in/Hg, tree and grass pollen
were moderate, weed pollen was low, mold spores were high, no
measurable seismic activity and the aurora monitor was quiet.


One perfunctory test is meaningless in the
context of science.


Unless the test is conclusive. Once again you are confusing inductive
and deductive logic, but that's no suprise since the only part of the
book you studied was the chapter on logical fallacies.




=============

http://tinyurl.com/ytcah
http://tinyurl.com/2yor7
http://tinyurl.com/2sapq
(Twisty cast the first stone)

=============

"...but I admitted I was wrong, Like a man! Something you and QRM
have a problem with. You guys are wrong and you both know it and
are both too small to admit it."

"...but as usual, your best simpl isn;t good enough."

"Athis is how proper communication wroks..."

---- Twistedhed ----

=============


-----= 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! =-----

From: (iamnotiamnotgeorge2004)
In ,
(Nicolai Carpathia) wrote:
From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
In , wrote:
Many times...........even tested them.

Sorry your tests results were debunked by

Frank in the xterminator thread, you are a

voodoo tech

(Frank never tested any of the antennas.)

I just tested my 9' whip (mounted on the

roo-guard of my Dodge). Tied it back so the

top was parallel with the ground (pointing

East, if that makes a difference).

Measurements were compared to the antenna
straight up.......;

SWR didn't change at all, and vertically

polarized field strength dropped by a hair.

owever, horizontally polarized field strength

made a huge jump to the good. Subjectively, I

listened to the toilet bowl while pulling on the

lanyard.

But,,,,there is supposed to be no skip...


Who said anything about skip, Twist?



Go to the local flea market and buy a cheap webtv, Frank. You're
cornfused again and are calling everyone "twist".
What is "the toilet bowl"? I was assuming you referred to 6 since you
have a perpetual menstruation concerning skip and big radios.
Since you were listening to 6, you were hearing skip, as you damn sure
weren't listening local.


Some weak signals disappeared while others

came in that weren't there before.



And those "weak" signals must have been local, since you are playing
semantic word games and essentially claiming there was no skip.

Let the whip

go back to vertical and the old signals came

back while the new signals were lost.

Looks like it's a compromise situation.
=A0
It is. You failed to account for, or at least detail, a myriad of
factors. Were you in a free zone?

No, I pay taxes just like every other

homeowner.


All you had to say was you were wrong, you don;t have to cry about it.
After all, one wouldn't expect any experiment performed by yourself
yield anything other than subjective results.
_
How near was the closest object?

The curb was right next to the truck. Gee,

maybe that messed up my test.....


Your incompetence did that.

_
Did
you have a duplicate antenna in which to compare duplicate tests?

Yes I did. Did I use it? No.


Flawing your subjected reportings even further.


Did
you repeat the test with the antenna on the opposite side of the
vehicle?

The antenna not mounted on either side of the
vehicle. It was mounted on the front of the

vehicle, which I clearly stated and you couldn't
comprehend because of your communication

deficit.




To be fair, you need spoon fed and asked may things twice, because you
have problems making yourself clear and once you say something, you
often must reclarify yourself because you maintain what you wrote wasn't
esxactly what you meant. Add to this your repeated homage via liberal
quoting of myself, and there we have it.


Did you move the vehicle around?

Why yes, it started break-dancing as soon as I
keyed the mic.
=A0=A0
LOL,,,,,no need for the sarcasm,,,,I understand your reluctance to
discuss your limitations.
None really needed me to point out your flawed test, as most caught it
as soon as you posted your incompetence.



A single day's atmospheric
condition for a single test?

Sunny, 74 degrees, 20% humidity, 29.96

in/Hg, tree and grass pollen were moderate,

weed pollen was low, mold spores were high,

no measurable seismic activity and the aurora

monitor was quiet.



Now duplicate your tests in addition to your climate.



=A0=A0One perfunctory test is meaningless in the context of science.

Unless the test is conclusive.


One test can never be be conclusive in such applied logistics.


Once again you are confusing inductive and

deductive logic,



Not at all, you''re confusing my objective logic with your subjective
results.


but that's no suprise since the only part of the

book you studied was the chapter on logical

fallacies.



Toss all the one liner insults you need in order to soothe your low
self-esteem. If I wouldn't have pointed out your incompetence
concerning your monkey acts, ignorance, and inability to differentiate
between objective and subjective results, another most certainly would
have.