|
102" whip
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. |
102" whip
|
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 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 Damn Tnom, a 102 on a mag mount? You should be whipped. LOL A homebrew triple magnet 750lbs magmount. Oops, I shouldn't have mentioned it. Next thing you know Frank will want to borrow it. |
102" whip
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
wrote: 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 ? Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to bend back quite a bit when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got myself a quick connect and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for transmission and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very pleased with it!! 73 Gen. J. O'Neill 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. |
102" whip
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:18:21 -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. ----== 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 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? ----== 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 Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:41:35 -0500, wrote in
: On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill wrote: 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 ? Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to bend back quite a bit when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got myself a quick connect and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for transmission and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very pleased with it!! 73 Gen. J. O'Neill 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? ----== 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
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. |
102" whip
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? |
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? 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. |
102" whip
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 |
102" whip
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". |
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 ****** 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 |
102" whip
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 =---- |
102" whip
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 =---- |
102" whip
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 =---- |
102" whip
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. |
102" whip
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. |
102" whip
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 =---- |
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 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. |
102" whip
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 =---- |
102" whip
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 =---- |
"What's the matter? Can't you afford to take a gamble?"
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 =---- |
"What's the matter? Can't you afford to take a gamble?"
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. |
102" whip
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. |
102" whip
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. |
102" whip
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? |
102" whip
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) |
102" whip
|
102" whip
|
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 K40, 8db gain? wow! bologna Get some glasses. I bet you didn't realize that the K-40 actually has * more than 60db gain * (referenced to a dummy load) |
102" whip
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. Thats why you don't use a spring. Also, remember, antenna height is most of this hobby as far as how good you get out. A 102 inch whip is pretty high. Best for transmit and receive! 73 It's good. It's just not the best. |
102" whip
Jack O'Neill wrote:
wrote: On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill wrote: 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 ? Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to bend back quite a bit when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got myself a quick connect and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for transmission and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very pleased with it!! 73 Gen. J. O'Neill 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. Thats why you don't use a spring. Also, remember, antenna height is most of this hobby as far as how good you get out. A 102 inch whip is pretty high. Best for transmit and receive! 73 Oh, forgot to say when I used my 102 inch whip I mounted it with a tilt towards the front of the car slightly. This way at 60 MPH it would stay pretty much vertical. |
102" whip
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:22:23 -0500, wrote in
: 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. That's why I offered, many times, to have others present to monitor the test. Or didn't you read it the first six times I wrote 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
Jack O'Neill schrieb:
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 ..... K40, 8db gain? wow! bologna Take your glasses and read again! K-40 .8db Just type "'point' 8" into your calculator and look what happens..... :-) |
102" whip
Volker Tonn wrote:
Jack O'Neill schrieb: 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 .... K40, 8db gain? wow! bologna Take your glasses and read again! K-40 .8db Just type "'point' 8" into your calculator and look what happens..... :-) OH, .8, GOT IT!!! my goof. Thats better!! ;-) |
102" whip
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:46:56 -0500, wrote in
: 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) I know exactly what you wrote as your intended purpose of the test. You've said it many, many times, and unlike you, I can read and understand something the -first- time. What you -still- can't understand is that I believe your claim (as to your original intent) to be a lie. Regardless, my intent is to do the same; if my results are the same as yours, wouldn't that be a huge endorsement not just for the antenna, but also for your credibility? If your results were valid then what do you have to lose? ----== 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 Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:37:41 -0500, wrote in
: 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? Nope. No friends at all, tnom. Never did, never will. ----== 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 Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:27:19 -0500, wrote in
: 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. In your mind is exactly where -all- your tests take place. ----== 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 =---- |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com