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! =-----

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

wrote in message . ..
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

Tnom exactly how much gain from the 4 ft vs the 9 ft are you claiming

On 21 Jun 2004 13:14:57 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote:

wrote in message . ..
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

Tnom exactly how much gain from the 4 ft vs the 9 ft are you claiming

I never claimed any numbers expressed in db. I only tested
specific antennas side by side to get a relative gain order.
One of the better antennas tested was (there are others)
the X-terminator. The X-terminator is a five foot antenna
that would barely outdo a 9 foot stainless steel whip. The
X-terminator would consistently show a higher reading on
different S meters.

Further tests showed that if you replace the 9 foot stainless steel
whip with a 9 foot one inch silver pipe then the full length silver
pipe would beat all others tested. Including the X-terminator

In , wrote:

On 21 Jun 2004 13:14:57 -0700, (I Am Not
George) wrote:

wrote in message . ..
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

Tnom exactly how much gain from the 4 ft vs the 9 ft are you claiming

I never claimed any numbers expressed in db. I only tested
specific antennas side by side to get a relative gain order.
One of the better antennas tested was (there are others)
the X-terminator. The X-terminator is a five foot antenna
that would barely outdo a 9 foot stainless steel whip. The
X-terminator would consistently show a higher reading on
different S meters.


All the Xterminator antennas are loaded 1/4-wave verticals. The fact
that the radiating element (whip) is smaller than a full-size 1/4-wave
vertical necessarily means that they are less efficient -- that's just
simple physics.

I should point out that the company also makes a model called the
MTM-1 which is a center-loaded mini using Litz wire in the loading
coil, totally ignoring the fact that Litz wire offers no advantage
when used at frequencies higher than a couple MHz. Also note that the
prices of these antennas have hit bargain-basement levels (even lower
than Radio Shack cheapies) reflecting the slumping demand for these
supposedly 'superior' products. People are finally learing that the
company has no clue regarding antenna design -- they cater to the
George Jetson types who respond to sci-fi aesthetics and internet
propaganda.


Further tests showed that if you replace the 9 foot stainless steel
whip with a 9 foot one inch silver pipe then the full length silver
pipe would beat all others tested. Including the X-terminator


I don't think anyone, including you, keeps a stock of 1" silver pipe
laying around just waiting to be cut and tuned for a CB antenna. But
oddly enough, I do. So after all your whining about me doing my own
tests, I'll repeat your test with the silver pipe. Now I'll need the
parameters of the test:

1. What was the final trim length/frequency of that pipe?
2. SWR?
3. Field strength relative to 9' SS and at what distance?
4. What was used for a FSM?
5. What was the vehicle used and the location of the antenna mount?
6. What was used to couple the pipe to the mount?






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

snip
Further tests showed that if you replace the 9 foot stainless steel
whip with a 9 foot one inch silver pipe then the full length silver
pipe would beat all others tested. Including the X-terminator


I don't think anyone, including you, keeps a stock of 1" silver pipe
laying around just waiting to be cut and tuned for a CB antenna. But
oddly enough, I do. So after all your whining about me doing my own
tests, I'll repeat your test with the silver pipe. Now I'll need the
parameters of the test:

1. What was the final trim length/frequency of that pipe?

I don't remember

2. SWR?

I don't remember but the lengths were adjusted for best SWR.

3. Field strength relative to 9' SS and at what distance?

3 s units for the SS whip............ 3.05 s units for the
X-terminator .......... 3.1 s units for the silver pipe.

Multiple a/b comparisons to determine the gain order.

A consistent gain order was evident.

The numerical values were obtained by averaging.


4. What was used for a FSM?

A Tentec radio

5. What was the vehicle used and the location of the antenna mount?

On the roof of a pickup. (quick disconnects)

6. What was used to couple the pipe to the mount?

Hose clamp

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:36:24 -0400, wrote:


snip
Further tests showed that if you replace the 9 foot stainless steel
whip with a 9 foot one inch silver pipe then the full length silver
pipe would beat all others tested. Including the X-terminator


I don't think anyone, including you, keeps a stock of 1" silver pipe
laying around just waiting to be cut and tuned for a CB antenna. But
oddly enough, I do. So after all your whining about me doing my own
tests, I'll repeat your test with the silver pipe. Now I'll need the
parameters of the test:

1. What was the final trim length/frequency of that pipe?

I don't remember

2. SWR?

I don't remember but the lengths were adjusted for best SWR.

3. Field strength relative to 9' SS and at what distance?

3 s units for the SS whip............ 3.05 s units for the
X-terminator .......... 3.1 s units for the silver pipe.

14 miles

Multiple a/b comparisons to determine the gain order.

A consistent gain order was evident.

The numerical values were obtained by averaging.


4. What was used for a FSM?

A Tentec radio

5. What was the vehicle used and the location of the antenna mount?

On the roof of a pickup. (quick disconnects)

6. What was used to couple the pipe to the mount?

Hose clamp

In , wrote:


snip
Further tests showed that if you replace the 9 foot stainless steel
whip with a 9 foot one inch silver pipe then the full length silver
pipe would beat all others tested. Including the X-terminator


I don't think anyone, including you, keeps a stock of 1" silver pipe
laying around just waiting to be cut and tuned for a CB antenna. But
oddly enough, I do. So after all your whining about me doing my own
tests, I'll repeat your test with the silver pipe. Now I'll need the
parameters of the test:

1. What was the final trim length/frequency of that pipe?

I don't remember


.....uh huh. Why am I not suprised?


2. SWR?

I don't remember but the lengths were adjusted for best SWR.


Ok..... so how did you adjust it?


3. Field strength relative to 9' SS and at what distance?

3 s units for the SS whip............ 3.05 s units for the
X-terminator .......... 3.1 s units for the silver pipe.


It would be nice to try this with an X-terminator, except I'm not
going to waste my money. Is there anyone in Spokane with one of these
and is willing to let it be used for this test, as well as corroborate
the test results?


Multiple a/b comparisons to determine the gain order.


???????


A consistent gain order was evident.


"Evident" requires "evidence". Where is the data? Was it even
recorded?


The numerical values were obtained by averaging.


Averaging what? Did you get enough fluctuation between seperate
key-ups that the data required averaging? How many times was each
antenna keyed-up? Better yet, since you averaged the readings they
must have been recorded, so where is that data?


4. What was used for a FSM?

A Tentec radio


Tentec has made lots of radios with different signal-strength meter
circuits. I can't quantify (and therefore validate) your meager data
without knowing the model.


5. What was the vehicle used and the location of the antenna mount?

On the roof of a pickup. (quick disconnects)


Make & model? In case you haven't noticed, pickups come in different
lengths, and the length can have a significant influence on SWR. I may
not be able to obtain the same make and model, but I'm sure I can come
close (unless it's an old Datsun, Chevy Luv, Dodge D-50, or some other
kiddie-truck).


6. What was used to couple the pipe to the mount?

Hose clamp


...........ok, I'll bite: How do you use a hose clamp to mount 1" pipe
to a 3/8-24 stud?






-----= 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 Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:07:13 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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.


I never claimed any numbers expressed in db. I only tested
specific antennas side by side to get a relative gain order.
One of the better antennas tested was (there are others)
the X-terminator. The X-terminator is a five foot antenna
that would barely outdo a 9 foot stainless steel whip. The
X-terminator would consistently show a higher reading on
different S meters.


All the Xterminator antennas are loaded 1/4-wave verticals. The fact
that the radiating element (whip) is smaller than a full-size 1/4-wave
vertical necessarily means that they are less efficient -- that's just
simple physics.


While I tend to agree with you (and all the conventional theory I've
been taught) that a full length 1/4 wave antenna will have more total
GAIN than an electrically shortened 1/4 wave antenna, there are other
factors to consider which could explain a slightly better signal from
the shortened antenna. The biggest of these would be radiation angle.
If the shortened antenna concentrates its gain at an angle which is
more favorable to the distant station, it will produce a stronger
signal, even if its total gain is slightly less.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 16:07:13 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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.


I never claimed any numbers expressed in db. I only tested
specific antennas side by side to get a relative gain order.
One of the better antennas tested was (there are others)
the X-terminator. The X-terminator is a five foot antenna
that would barely outdo a 9 foot stainless steel whip. The
X-terminator would consistently show a higher reading on
different S meters.


All the Xterminator antennas are loaded 1/4-wave verticals. The fact
that the radiating element (whip) is smaller than a full-size 1/4-wave
vertical necessarily means that they are less efficient -- that's just
simple physics.


While I tend to agree with you (and all the conventional theory I've
been taught) that a full length 1/4 wave antenna will have more total
GAIN than an electrically shortened 1/4 wave antenna, there are other
factors to consider which could explain a slightly better signal from
the shortened antenna. The biggest of these would be radiation angle.
If the shortened antenna concentrates its gain at an angle which is
more favorable to the distant station, it will produce a stronger
signal, even if its total gain is slightly less.

Dave

if a shortened antenna has a lobe that favors dx then it is only good
during dx conditions and only in the direction of that one lobe. the
rest of the time it is not performing as good as a 9 ft whip.