|
102" whip
No shortened antenna can beat a full 1/4 wave length antenna of good design. I have shown this in my tests. The X-Terminator can be beat by a 1/4 wave length antenna, but with the same tests the X-Terminator can beat the RS 102" ss whip. No, you stated that you only tested it against a RS 102". You never stated "No shortened antenna can beat a full 1/4 wave length antenna of good design" until this post. I have said that many times today and in the past. I have even shown 1/4 wave antennas that will beat the X-Terminator. |
102" whip
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:45:30 -0500, wrote in
: It's secondary and arguable as to why it does what it does. All one really has to know is what it does. But we only have your word on that, which seems to differ from the word of everyone else in this group. What's my word based on? A test. A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no independent verification. What's your word based on? Consensus? Common sense and the laws of physics. But according to you, "we should never trust the claim of others. You and me included." No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't have to believe me. Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead? So dig right into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design? I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize as to why it didn't perform. But I want -your- hypothesis, 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 =---- |
102" whip
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer wrote in retet1pmcedd6m33kunpolbejflla9iq08@2355323778: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:02:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:55:38 +0000 (UTC), Skipp out in left field wrote in : : Professor wrote: : You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in : performance if mounted in the proper location... What about gain antennas such as the common 1/2 or 5/8 wave? Assuming this is a mobile install..... A 1/2w antenna is not a "gain" antenna and requires a high-impedance feed. A 5/8w also requires some impedance matching at the base, but its benefits in a mobile installation aren't realized because of the heavy loading required (a 5/8w at 11m is about 22 feet high!). Frank; A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave? Sure, if it's standing a full 18 feet tall. Now you know thats what I meant when I asked that question... Hey BTW all of your rain is now down here... Thanks... |
102" whip
james wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:44:19 GMT, Lancer wrote: +On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:20:36 GMT, james wrote: + +On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer wrote: + ++Frank; ++ A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave? +***** + +Correct it doesn't + +james +Really, a 1/2 wave vertical has no gain over a 1/4 wave vertical? + +Go back to school... you missed something.. ****** missed nothing. Just wanted to see your reaction. I am pleased with your reaction. Thanks james No problem...glad to make your day... Go blow a goat.. (Steveo your turn to turn me in to the SPCA...) |
102" whip
No, I'm financially responsible. That means I'm not willing to risk my money on antennas based on purported claims of subjective tests from a single source that can't explain why the results don't obey the laws of physics. If you did then that's your problem, but don't expect me to be as foolish with -my- money as you are with yours. Put your money where your mouth is. Stop asking for a handout. |
102" whip
What's my word based on? A test. A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no independent verification. A test is better than no test. What's your word based on? Consensus? Common sense and the laws of physics. Consensus and incomplete laws of physics But according to you, "we should never trust the claim of others. You and me included." No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't have to believe me. Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead? If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that response to you. You have it down pat. So dig right into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design? I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize as to why it didn't perform. But I want -your- hypothesis, tnom. Why the results? You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture. Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the facts. Run the test and stop posturing. |
102" whip
Lancer wrote:
james wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:44:19 GMT, Lancer wrote: +On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:20:36 GMT, james wrote: + +On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer wrote: + ++Frank; ++ A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave? +***** + +Correct it doesn't + +james +Really, a 1/2 wave vertical has no gain over a 1/4 wave vertical? + +Go back to school... you missed something.. ****** missed nothing. Just wanted to see your reaction. I am pleased with your reaction. Thanks james No problem...glad to make your day... Go blow a goat.. (Steveo your turn to turn me in to the SPCA...) Citizen's arrest! -- 30GB/month http://newsreader.com/ |
102" whip
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:27:56 GMT, Lancer wrote:
+james wrote: + + On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 19:44:19 GMT, Lancer wrote: + ++On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:20:36 GMT, james wrote: ++ ++On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer wrote: ++ +++Frank; +++ A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave? ++***** ++ ++Correct it doesn't ++ ++james ++Really, a 1/2 wave vertical has no gain over a 1/4 wave vertical? ++ ++Go back to school... you missed something.. + ****** + + missed nothing. Just wanted to see your reaction. + + I am pleased with your reaction. Thanks + + james + +No problem...glad to make your day... + +Go blow a goat.. (Steveo your turn to turn me in to the SPCA...) ***** Sorry I am not into beastiality. james |
102" whip
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:17:32 GMT, Lancer wrote:
+Frank Gilliland wrote: + + On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer wrote in + retet1pmcedd6m33kunpolbejflla9iq08@2355323778: + +On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:02:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: + +On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:55:38 +0000 (UTC), Skipp out in left field wrote in : + +: Professor wrote: +: You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in +: performance if mounted in the proper location... + +What about gain antennas such as the common 1/2 or 5/8 wave? + + +Assuming this is a mobile install..... + +A 1/2w antenna is not a "gain" antenna and requires a high-impedance +feed. A 5/8w also requires some impedance matching at the base, but +its benefits in a mobile installation aren't realized because of the +heavy loading required (a 5/8w at 11m is about 22 feet high!). + +Frank; + A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave? + + + Sure, if it's standing a full 18 feet tall. + + +Now you know thats what I meant when I asked that question... + +Hey BTW all of your rain is now down here... + +Thanks... ***** Lets play double jeopardy!!! The answer is 2.15 dBi what is the question? james |
102" whip
|
102" whip
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 14:17:32 GMT, Lancer wrote in
: Frank Gilliland wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 01:41:13 GMT, Lancer wrote in retet1pmcedd6m33kunpolbejflla9iq08@2355323778: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:02:08 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:55:38 +0000 (UTC), Skipp out in left field wrote in : : Professor wrote: : You don't need the spring... and the 102" is unparalleled in : performance if mounted in the proper location... What about gain antennas such as the common 1/2 or 5/8 wave? Assuming this is a mobile install..... A 1/2w antenna is not a "gain" antenna and requires a high-impedance feed. A 5/8w also requires some impedance matching at the base, but its benefits in a mobile installation aren't realized because of the heavy loading required (a 5/8w at 11m is about 22 feet high!). Frank; A 1/2 wave doesn't have gain over a 1/4 wave? Sure, if it's standing a full 18 feet tall. Now you know thats what I meant when I asked that question... Hey BTW all of your rain is now down here... Thanks... You're welcome, and we still have more if you want it. ----== 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 =---- |
102" whip
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:40:34 -0500, wrote in
: No, I'm financially responsible. That means I'm not willing to risk my money on antennas based on purported claims of subjective tests from a single source that can't explain why the results don't obey the laws of physics. If you did then that's your problem, but don't expect me to be as foolish with -my- money as you are with yours. Put your money where your mouth is. Stop asking for a handout. I offered to buy one of these antenna on the condition that you will buy it from me -IF- it doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' RS whip as per your alleged test results. If you had -any- confidence in your test results then there is absolutely no risk on your part, the financial 'burden' would be mine, and I would end up with a pretty good antenna (according to you). So how is that "asking for a handout"? ----== 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 =---- |
102" whip
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:54:29 -0500, wrote in
: What's my word based on? A test. A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no independent verification. A test is better than no test. The Michelson-Morley experiment exposed that fallacy. What's your word based on? Consensus? Common sense and the laws of physics. Consensus and incomplete laws of physics Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different antennas. Go for it. But according to you, "we should never trust the claim of others. You and me included." No, I have corrected what I said and have repeatedly said you don't have to believe me. Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead? If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that response to you. You have it down pat. Where did I change your numbers, tnom? I am suggesting you make the effort to research the reasons behind your results. The way it looks now, you don't care about the reasons just as long as the results agree with your opinion. That's not truth, tnom -- that's deception (and it's a good thing you aren't selling these antennas because you could be charged with the crime of misrepresentation and/or deceptive business practices). So dig right into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design? I don't care what makes it bad. Do the test then you can hypothesize as to why it didn't perform. But I want -your- hypothesis, tnom. Why the results? You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture. Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the facts. Run the test and stop posturing. I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't achieve the same results. 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 =---- |
102" whip
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:53:53 -0500, wrote in
: 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 ? You don't need the 102" stainless. I will re-post two separate tests that confirmed that an antenna like the X-Terminator can perform better than the 102" stainless. *The main reason I did the test in the first place was to debunk the notion that a short antenna like the X-Terminator could outperform the 102" stainless. I couldn't debunk it. snip I debunked -your- tests a long time ago, tnom: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...54d79ae?hl=en& Then, like now, you resorted to name-calling to back up your results. ----== 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 =---- |
102" whip
On 28 Jan 2006 01:42:39 GMT, Steveo wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote: On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 15:18:22 -0500, wrote in : I concur. A properly mounted 102 inch whip will and should perform better than any loaded antenna. In theory yes. In practice it may not. A 102" stainless steel whip can be beat by some shorter (loaded) antennas. Wrong. By it's very nature, a loaded antenna loses some power in the loading coil and therefore is not as efficient as an antenna without one. The only way a shorter antenna could outperform a full-length 1/4-wave whip is if it had some way to pull down the take-off angle. So far, nobody has provided any theory or empirical evidence that any such antenna exists, or is even possible. The 102 is the best portable antenna you can buy, bottom line. (cheap too) It takes a real CBer to drive around with one every day tho. 72 posts fot a 102" whip? WTF? ISee what happens when I leave you incharge for a few days ! Vinnie S. |
102" whip
"Steveo" wrote in message
... "DrDeath" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message Snipped The 102" rocks, except for its tree pruning and over-hang scraping qualities..oh and it's a bit on the odious side appearance wise. I have that mount and a Wilson 1000 on one of my trucks, I rarely put the 102" on because of the noise it makes banging off of things, and it's somewhat directional mounted on the step bumper. (good dx shooter) The Wilson 1000 mag mount is hard to beat for most practical applications. I have mine mounted in the center of my truck box, puts it pretty close to center. I have to tie down for the drive through. The 102? Yup, drilled 4 holes in the back side in the center of the box and covered it with silicone and used a mirror mount. But with the 4 inch lift and the big mudders I had to tie it down to go through the drive through the car wash has a truck bay so no problems there. Mind you this is not my daily driver, not at 8mpg. Get rid of the linear. |
102" whip
|
102" whip
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:04:47 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:40:34 -0500, wrote in : No, I'm financially responsible. That means I'm not willing to risk my money on antennas based on purported claims of subjective tests from a single source that can't explain why the results don't obey the laws of physics. If you did then that's your problem, but don't expect me to be as foolish with -my- money as you are with yours. Put your money where your mouth is. Stop asking for a handout. I offered to buy one of these antenna on the condition that you will buy it from me -IF- it doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' RS whip as per your alleged test results. If you had -any- confidence in your test results then there is absolutely no risk on your part, the financial 'burden' would be mine, and I would end up with a pretty good antenna (according to you). So how is that "asking for a handout"? I might get cooties if I deal with you. Buy your own antenna. |
102" whip
Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different antennas. Go for it. Any one who has read your posts over the past few years is probably suffering from salt poisoning. I don't have to know why the 102" ss is lousy, just as I don't have to know why mercury is poison. All I need to know is that it is. Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead? If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that response to you. You have it down pat. Where did I change your numbers, tnom? You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you would ever run a test. You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture. Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the facts. Run the test and stop posturing. I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't achieve the same results. Well? I don't do charity, especially for you. |
102" whip
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:40:30 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:53:53 -0500, wrote in : 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 ? You don't need the 102" stainless. I will re-post two separate tests that confirmed that an antenna like the X-Terminator can perform better than the 102" stainless. *The main reason I did the test in the first place was to debunk the notion that a short antenna like the X-Terminator could outperform the 102" stainless. I couldn't debunk it. snip I debunked -your- tests a long time ago, tnom: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...54d79ae?hl=en& You didn't debunk anything. The only thing you did was unnecessarily swamp the issue with your dribble and conjecture.It does nothing to prove that a 102'' Stainless Steel whip will outperform the X-Terminator. If you really wanted to prove it you'd run the test. You don't because it would upset your thinking on antennas. Then, like now, you resorted to name-calling to back up your results. I said you might have cooties, I said you are dishonorable, but I never resorted to name calling. * I can now officially call you a name because you falsely accused me of name calling. The truth can now be said. You are a liar. |
102" whip
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 is overfive feet tall. ^ corrected post ^ |
102" whip
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:22:05 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:54:29 -0500, wrote in : What's my word based on? A test. A test with anomalous results, no follow-up research and no independent verification. A test is better than no test. The Michelson-Morley experiment exposed that fallacy. ah yes the experiment whose results would support some strange ideas (both true and not) one being that the Opes were right and Galieio was worng the other modern physics _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
102" whip
108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db I still think my KW-7 kicks butt! I talk skip on AM and SSB using a small 2 pill on low. |
102" whip
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? Professor www.telstar-electronics.com |
102" whip
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 |
102" whip
Vinnie S. wrote:
72 posts fot a 102" whip? WTF? ISee what happens when I leave you incharge for a few days ! Vinnie S. Crack that whip! -- 30GB/month http://newsreader.com/ |
102" whip
|
102" whip
wrote in message
... "Steveo" wrote in message ... "DrDeath" wrote: "Steveo" wrote in message Snipped The 102" rocks, except for its tree pruning and over-hang scraping qualities..oh and it's a bit on the odious side appearance wise. I have that mount and a Wilson 1000 on one of my trucks, I rarely put the 102" on because of the noise it makes banging off of things, and it's somewhat directional mounted on the step bumper. (good dx shooter) The Wilson 1000 mag mount is hard to beat for most practical applications. I have mine mounted in the center of my truck box, puts it pretty close to center. I have to tie down for the drive through. The 102? Yup, drilled 4 holes in the back side in the center of the box and covered it with silicone and used a mirror mount. But with the 4 inch lift and the big mudders I had to tie it down to go through the drive through the car wash has a truck bay so no problems there. Mind you this is not my daily driver, not at 8mpg. Get rid of the linear. Get a BIGGER linear. |
102" whip
|
102" whip
Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different antennas. Go for it. Any one who has read your posts over the past few years is probably suffering from salt poisoning. I don't have to know why the 102" ss is lousy, just as I don't have to know why mercury is poison. All I need to know is that it is. Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead? If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that response to you. You have it down pat. Where did I change your numbers, tnom? You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you would ever run a test. You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture. Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the facts. Run the test and stop posturing. I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't achieve the same results. Well? I don't do charity, especially for you. What is the antenna you want to test? Is it a "mr. coily"? Is it a "x-terminator"? I can tell you right now those are keyclown antennas meant to appeal to truckers and keyclowns. They perform like ****, but they look cool. |
102" whip
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 Uh Tnom, you can't make something a reference AFTER the test. That's not how you do a baseline. |
102" whip
|
102" whip
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:58:32 -0800, Jay in the Mojave
wrote in : snip What was used for the field strength measuring device? And what was used to produce a constant tone, 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 =---- |
102" whip
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:54:40 -0500, wrote in
: Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different antennas. Go for it. Any one who has read your posts over the past few years is probably suffering from salt poisoning. Your sharp rhetoric is cutting me to pieces. Really it is. Oh dear, I don't think I can take any more. Please stop. I don't have to know why the 102" ss is lousy, just as I don't have to know why mercury is poison. All I need to know is that it is. Says you and -only- you. Uh-huh. How about correcting your test results instead? If I changed the numbers that would be falsification. I'll leave that response to you. You have it down pat. Where did I change your numbers, tnom? 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 -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. You are not going to get a definitive answer from me, just conjecture. Conjecturing with someone like you, a dishonorable person, is an endless loop. All we need are the facts. Just the facts. Go get the facts. Run the test and stop posturing. I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't achieve the same results. Well? I don't do charity, especially for you. How is that charity, tnom? If the antenna works like you say then you aren't out a single penny. You can afford -nothing-, can't you? Or do you -expect- your antenna to fail the test? That seems more likely. ----== 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 =---- |
102" whip
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:44:26 -0500, wrote in
: On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:04:47 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:40:34 -0500, wrote in : No, I'm financially responsible. That means I'm not willing to risk my money on antennas based on purported claims of subjective tests from a single source that can't explain why the results don't obey the laws of physics. If you did then that's your problem, but don't expect me to be as foolish with -my- money as you are with yours. Put your money where your mouth is. Stop asking for a handout. I offered to buy one of these antenna on the condition that you will buy it from me -IF- it doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' RS whip as per your alleged test results. If you had -any- confidence in your test results then there is absolutely no risk on your part, the financial 'burden' would be mine, and I would end up with a pretty good antenna (according to you). So how is that "asking for a handout"? I might get cooties if I deal with you. Buy your own antenna. That's the plan, tnom -- or couldn't you understand what I wrote? Here, I lay it out point by point: 1. I buy the antenna. 2. I test the antenna. Still with me here? Good..... If the antenna meets or exceeds the performance of a Radio Shack 102" SS whip then I post the results with an apology, end of story, exit stage left, case closed. BUT.... If the antenna -fails- then you buy the antenna for the price I paid. Like I said in the other post, I'll even pay shipping. Do want a ham to monitor the test and provide independent verification of the results? I'm sure that won't be a problem. So the -=ONLY=- way my test will cost you ANYTHING is if the antenna fails to perform according to the results of your test. Now is there anything about my proposal that you don't understand? Is there .....ANYONE..... in this newsgroup who doesn't understand what I just proposed? So what'll it be, tnom? Are you going to back up your test or continue to play stupid? ----== 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 =---- |
102" whip
I might get cooties if I deal with you. Buy your own antenna. That's the plan, tnom -- or couldn't you understand what I wrote? Here, I lay it out point by point: 1. I buy the antenna. 2. I test the antenna. Still with me here? Good..... If the antenna meets or exceeds the performance of a Radio Shack 102" SS whip then I post the results with an apology, end of story, exit stage left, case closed. BUT.... No but. If the antenna -fails- then you buy the antenna for the price I paid. Like I said in the other post, I'll even pay shipping. Do want a ham to monitor the test and provide independent verification of the results? I'm sure that won't be a problem. So the -=ONLY=- way my test will cost you ANYTHING is if the antenna fails to perform according to the results of your test. No Frank. You fudging the numbers to save face will cost me. Now is there anything about my proposal that you don't understand? I understand A L the ramifications of you doing this test. I will take no financial responsibility from some one I do not trust. Is there .....ANYONE..... in this newsgroup who doesn't understand what I just proposed? They understand that your history is much more problematic than mine, so if you really want to debunk me then take the bull by the horns and buy the antennas. So what'll it be, tnom? Are you going to back up your test or continue to play stupid? I've backed my tests by exposing them to a newsgroup and encouraging others to do the same test. What have you done? Nothing. |
102" whip
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:46:41 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote in : snip I've suggested reasons for the results, but admitted that I don't have a definitive conclusion as to WHY the results were as is,nor do I have to in order to post the results. What's the difference between that and peddling snake-oil? Because I admit that I am not sure of the reasons for the result but I am sure of the result. I am not peddling anything other than the truth. You don't have to buy it. 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. ----== 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 =---- |
102" whip
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? |
102" whip
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:56 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com