You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
would ever run a test.


Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
anticipated results

Well then you don't know the history behind me running the antenna
tests. Could it be that I wanted to debunk the X-terminator?

Guess what? I did want to debunk it, but I couldn't. Numbers don't
lie, just people. Sound familiar?


Bad attempt at selective snipping, tnom. Here's the -whole- paragraph
as I wrote it:

Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
anticipated results -regardless- of what you stated as your reason for
running the tests, which was most likely a lie intented to add a false
legitimacy to the results. After all, why would you (or anyone else
for that matter) buy an expensive antenna when you expected it to
fail? That doesn't make any sense either, tnom.

Gee, why am I not suprised that you resort to deceptive tactics when
your test results are contested?

Do the right thing and accept the challenge, tnom.

The only thing of substance that was different was this

"After all, why would you (or anyone else
for that matter) buy an expensive antenna when you expected it to
fail? That doesn't make any sense either, tnom."

I guess I can answer that. It may be a waste of money for you but
it's pennies to me.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:43:51 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:33:12 -0500, wrote in
:


What was used for the field strength measuring device?


And what was used to produce a constant tone, tnom?

On this particular test I used a Radio Shack 27 mhz remote control
car transmitter that was hooked to a oversized battery and left
running until it stabilized.


I thought you said you used an SSB radio with a constant tone? I also
seem to recall that your constant tone 'generator' was you whistling
into the mic. Am I wrong or do I need to go swimming in google juice?

Not on the RS deluxe magmount test

O
Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
this bending. It is significant.


Where are your test results showing a "significant" loss of gain with
a wind-bent antenna?

Don't even need a test on this one.

1. It can be mathematically calculated. ( I'll let you do that)

2. It looses gain bad enough that you can actually see it and
hear it. Example :

Two vehicles are traveling together down the expressway at 75mph.
One uses a K-40. The other a 102" whip. Both appear to have similar
maximum S-meter readings but the 102 " whips signal fades in and out
The K-40 does some fading but not nearly as deep as the 102".

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:42:48 -0500, wrote:

+On 24 Jan 2006 19:28:09 -0800, wrote:
+
+Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
+because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
+with the whip ?
+
+Here's another antenna test post I dug out of the archives.
+
+********************************************
+
+ I did this test a few years ago (minus the Wilson), at least as best
+I could. The problem is that when swapping the magmounts the
+position might change a little bit. If the position changes a little
+bit then the measured field strength may change a little bit also.
+Seeing how all of these antennas are very close to begin with
+then you have to wonder if the results may be off just a little bit?
+
+Anyway's, I did run the test and attempted to calibrate the results
+in db's . The calibration may be off a little bit, but the order from
+the best to the worst as I measured IS accurate.
+
+Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
+K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
+Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
+5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
+6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
+108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
+7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db
+
+Of coarse since the time of this test I have found
+and measured even better antennas. Of these the
+practical ones all use large diameter masting made of
+highly conductive material. A large diameter, air spaced
+loading coil. This coil is always upwardly located and the
+overall antenna height
******
Were these antennae used as the transmitting or receiving antennae?
If transmitting antennae then what was the receiving antenna and
receiving equiptment. Second unknown is the path loss between the
transmiting antenna and the receiving antenna. Third item what was the
gain(dBi) of the receiving antenna. Without the above data, the above
results meaningless.

james

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:48:36 -0500, wrote in
:


So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
did, correct?


I'll take your silence as a passive confirmation.

Oh, I have ideas but there is no way that I can make a complete
and definitive accounting of why the numbers are as is. I will not
even attempt to go that route. Going that route is like discussing
abortion. The only thing you'll get is an argument.


Abortion is simple. I could summarize the problem in about four or
five paragraphs, and the solution in one or two more. The antenna
argument is even simpler. I have offered a solution which rewards you
with a new antenna and $200 if what you say is true, but costs you
only a gas fillup (and your integrity) if you lied. You have flatly
rejected my offer. That, my friend, is a stronger argument than any EM
theory you could assemble into a coherent explanation.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:52:45 -0500, wrote in
:


You typed some numbers on a keyboard and CLAIMED to have done a test.
Now you're playing stupid.

I'll go one step further: I'll buy the antenna and do the test, and if
the antenna performs according the results of your alleged test then
I'll send you the antenna for free -- AND $200 to boot. If it fails
then you just buy back the antenna. Is -that- a deal?

You are wasting your time. I want nothing to do with you or your
proposal.

What's the matter? Can't you afford to take a gamble?


There must be something wrong with Usenet..... for some reason I can't
seem to get the message through to tnom that I would be putting up the
antenna -and- $200..... hello?..... testing 1, 2, 3, 4,..... is this
darn thing working?









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:56:45 -0500, wrote in
:


You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
would ever run a test.


Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
anticipated results

Well then you don't know the history behind me running the antenna
tests. Could it be that I wanted to debunk the X-terminator?

Guess what? I did want to debunk it, but I couldn't. Numbers don't
lie, just people. Sound familiar?


Bad attempt at selective snipping, tnom. Here's the -whole- paragraph
as I wrote it:

Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
anticipated results -regardless- of what you stated as your reason for
running the tests, which was most likely a lie intented to add a false
legitimacy to the results. After all, why would you (or anyone else
for that matter) buy an expensive antenna when you expected it to
fail? That doesn't make any sense either, tnom.

Gee, why am I not suprised that you resort to deceptive tactics when
your test results are contested?

Do the right thing and accept the challenge, tnom.

The only thing of substance that was different was this

"After all, why would you (or anyone else
for that matter) buy an expensive antenna when you expected it to
fail? That doesn't make any sense either, tnom."

I guess I can answer that. It may be a waste of money for you but
it's pennies to me.


Then it shouldn't be a problem to gamble mere pennies to have your
test verified independently. In fact, why don't you fly over and
monitor the test for yourself, Mr. Moneybags? Unless you live in
Timbuktu the lines will take longer than the flight. And just to make
it worthwhile I can provide a whole itinerary of places to go and
things to do while you're here. We have great skiing (49 Degrees North
has about 70" at the base and 120" at the summit with 15" of new snow
as of yesterday, and that's about the same for most of the resorts).
The falls are flowing pretty high right now too, and there's a
platform at the bottom where you can stand and feel the ground
literally shake beneath your feet while you get wet from the spray. We
have an Imax theater and huge ice-skating rink right in the middle of
Riverfront Park. And I know this great little blues club that serves
up some killer chicken wings. I also think there's a hamfest coming up
soon. And I still have friends at the station who will let me take you
on a tour so you can see what a -real- "driver" looks like. They might
even let you climb the tower to replace the lamps (if you don't mind a
little ice and bird ****).

So come on over, it'll be fun!!!







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:36:57 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:48:36 -0500, wrote in
:


So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
did, correct?


I'll take your silence as a passive confirmation.

Oh, I have ideas but there is no way that I can make a complete
and definitive accounting of why the numbers are as is. I will not
even attempt to go that route. Going that route is like discussing
abortion. The only thing you'll get is an argument.


Abortion is simple. I could summarize the problem in about four or
five paragraphs, and the solution in one or two more.

Wow. You are truly a smart man. I nominate you for the next
professorship. Irwin Corey would be proud.

The antenna
argument is even simpler. I have offered a solution which rewards you
with a new antenna and $200 if what you say is true, but costs you
only a gas fillup (and your integrity) if you lied. You have flatly
rejected my offer. That, my friend, is a stronger argument than any EM
theory you could assemble into a coherent explanation.

You have offered nothing that would influence me to help you out.
If you want to see the numbers either believe me or do the test
completely independent of my help.

You are wasting your time. I want nothing to do with you or your
proposal.

What's the matter? Can't you afford to take a gamble?


There must be something wrong with Usenet..... for some reason I can't
seem to get the message through to tnom that I would be putting up the
antenna -and- $200..... hello?..... testing 1, 2, 3, 4,..... is this
darn thing working?

What doesn't make sense. You putting up $200 for a $50 antenna?

I agree. You don't make sense.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:11:34 -0500, wrote in
:

O
Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
this bending. It is significant.


Where are your test results showing a "significant" loss of gain with
a wind-bent antenna?

Don't even need a test on this one.


In your own words:

"If you really wanted to prove it you'd run the test. You don't
because it would upset your thinking on antennas."

"A test is better than no test."


1. It can be mathematically calculated. ( I'll let you do that)


"I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize
as to why it didn't perform."


2. It looses gain bad enough that you can actually see it and
hear it. Example :

Two vehicles are traveling together down the expressway at 75mph.
One uses a K-40. The other a 102" whip. Both appear to have similar
maximum S-meter readings but the 102 " whips signal fades in and out
The K-40 does some fading but not nearly as deep as the 102".


"All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the
facts. Run the test and stop posturing."

But I think this one is closer to the truth:

"You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just
conjecture."






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----