+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

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.

Who's talking dbi ? I'm not. The reference was the RS deluxe mag
mount. Referenced at 0db

As I explained. The order of best to worst is accurate. Calibrating
the results into db is as explained below. Meaningless? I don't think
so.

This test was done with an in sight very low power remote transmitter
located about 200 yards away. A regular CB was used with low
readings on the S-meter to give me a relative field strength. The
exact S numbers were noted. Then next step was to calibrate the
readings.

The db calculation were computed after taking the same CB and exciting
it with a variable power transmitter to see how the noted S-meter
readings related to power output of the variable transmitter.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 18:59:12 -0500, wrote in
:

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.


Yes I am.


I nominate you for the next
professorship. Irwin Corey would be proud.


Nobody cares.


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.


I'm not asking for your help at all, tnom. I'm trying to see how much
confidence, if any, you have in your test results. So far you haven't
been able to demonstrate any confidence whatsoever.









----== 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 19:01:32 -0500, wrote in
:


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.


What doesn't make sense is you -refusing- $200 and a free antenna. If
your test results are valid then that's what you get. But since I
don't believe you ran a valid test, and you keep pushing people to buy
the antenna and test it for themselves, it only seems right that you
should have some sort of stake in this test. Since the antenna costs
you only pennies then just how much of a risk is it to you, tnom?







----== 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 =----

Just to make it absolutely clear:

- I buy the antenna.

- You can monitor the test yourself, or send as many representatives
as you like -- the more the merrier.

- If the antenna works like you say then you get the antenna, $200, a
public apology, and I'll leave the newsgroup forever.

- If it doesn't then you buy the antenna for "pennies".


Well?









----== 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 16:33:38 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

Just to make it absolutely clear:

- I buy the antenna.

- You can monitor the test yourself, or send as many representatives
as you like -- the more the merrier.

- If the antenna works like you say then you get the antenna, $200, a
public apology, and I'll leave the newsgroup forever.

- If it doesn't then you buy the antenna for "pennies".


Well?

I expect you to do the test without any help from me.

I also expect you to have an independent trusted representative
confirm the validity of the test as YOU suggested.

Anything short of that is worthless as is your offer.

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.


I'm not asking for your help at all, tnom. I'm trying to see how much
confidence, if any, you have in your test results. So far you haven't
been able to demonstrate any confidence whatsoever.

It has nothing to do with me not being confident in the results. It
has to do with me not being confident in any of your assertions of
a fair test. You have long ago lost my trust. Why should I start to
trust you now?

Don't bother answering! I can't trust your answer anyway.

Don't even need a test on this one.


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."

I'll repeat. No test is necessary in my mind. I have seen the above
scenario more than once. If you don't believe it then you test it.

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!!!

I don't gamble and you have cooties anyway. Seeing how you can't
afford this antenna why don't you use your self proclaimed expertise
and make an appropriate substitute. Or maybe you can borrow one from
one of your friends at the truck stop. You do have friends don't you?

What doesn't make sense is you -refusing- $200 and a free antenna. If
your test results are valid then that's what you get. But since I
don't believe you ran a valid test, and you keep pushing people to buy
the antenna and test it for themselves, it only seems right that you
should have some sort of stake in this test. Since the antenna costs
you only pennies then just how much of a risk is it to you, tnom?

Seeing how my original intention was to show that the X-Terminator
was an under performer * I find it hard to believe that I fudged the
numbers so that the outcome would dispute my own statements of it
being an under performer.

* (You can research my posts on this manner that occurred before I
ever ran the test, don't ask me to do it for you)

wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:58:32 -0800, Jay in the Mojave
wrote:



wrote:



On 29 Jan 2006 05:21:39 -0800, "Professor"
wrote:




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

So let me understand these readings you made... the DLX antenna was
your baseline?


Yes. It was the lowest and became the reference


Hello Tnom:

Good going doing the testing. There are a lot of guys out there that do
not test anything and just recite books. Usually the guys who write the
books aren't the guys who design and test the antennas. And that testing
data is held quiet in the companies files.

I hear this recited stuff all the time. But theres no substitute for
hands on testing and comparison testing.

What was used for the field strength measuring device?



This test was done with an in sight very low power remote transmitter
located about 200 yards away. A regular CB was used with low
readings on the S-meter to give me a relative field strength. The
exact S numbers were noted. Then next step was to calibrate the
readings.

The db calculation were computed after taking the same CB and exciting
it with a variable power transmitter to see how the noted S-meter
readings related to power output of the variable transmitter.



K40, 8db gain? wow! bologna