|
102" whip
Scott in Baltimore schrieb:
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. This is somewhat irrelevant. The test was made to show gain on zero degree radiation angle. For CB-skip radiation angle mostly is between 10 and 20 degrees. This test will not neccessarely show the maximum over all gain. But the low radiation comparison is good for people who want to talk to other's in the same area whilst driving. Only one thing is missing: There is no comparison on different heights of mounting. I bet there are some relevant -not really big- differences on some antennas mounted on 4ft, 8ft or 13ft height (car/ van/ truck). BTW: I've never seen a 108 ft stainless steel whip... ;-) odo -from germany- |
102" whip
Volker Tonn wrote:
Scott in Baltimore schrieb: 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. Got news for you. Skip can be "talked" with as little as 10 MILLI watts!! Granted, you need a good antenna and all the patience in the world for this kind of power level, but it is done. The hams call it "QRP" |
102" whip
Jack O'Neill schrieb:
Volker Tonn wrote: Scott in Baltimore schrieb: 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. Got news for you. Skip can be "talked" with as little as 10 MILLI watts!! Granted, you need a good antenna and all the patience in the world for this kind of power level, but it is done. The hams call it "QRP" You wanted to answer Scott? ***I*** do know that.... ....when conditions are good.... |
"What's the matter? Can't you afford to take a gamble?"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:26:51 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote in : snip BTW, the offer still stands. On second thought, no it doesn't. After seeing how low the price has dropped for this super-duper stick that allegedly performs better than a 102" whip, I'm convinced that your tests were bogus and that you falsified the data/results for whatever reason. I don't know that reason but I'll bet it has something to do with money. Maybe you own stock in the company, or you're the dope in the shop that builds these things -- don't know, don't care, and it don't matter cause you and your antenna are worthless. Now go get a -real- job and quit selling snake oil on the internet. ----== 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?"
snip BTW, the offer still stands. On second thought, no it doesn't. After seeing how low the price has dropped for this super-duper stick that allegedly performs better than a 102" whip, I'm convinced that your tests were bogus and that you falsified the data/results for whatever reason. I don't know that reason but I'll bet it has something to do with money. Maybe you own stock in the company, or you're the dope in the shop that builds these things -- don't know, don't care, and it don't matter cause you and your antenna are worthless. Now go get a -real- job and quit selling snake oil on the internet. That's ok Frank. You have the right to think what you want. |
"What's the matter? Can't you afford to take a gamble?"
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. I expect -you- to back up your claims. Your tests were contradictory in their data. Your data is unconfirmed as to its validity. Your conclusions exclude the very real possibility of error or unknown variables. You refuse to back up your conclusions with theoretical constructs or additional tests. And you stick to your guns as if your word was the Holy Gospel. Yet when confronted with a challenge to your test, a challenge where you risk absolutely nothing (don't forget that you would get the antenna for your $25), with an objective and independently verified test, what you you do? You sit in the corner, pee on yourself and whine like Steve Robeson having his period. Congratulations, tnom -- you just discredited both yourself -AND- the antenna you are trying to get people to buy. BTW, the offer still stands. I expect you to try and debunk my results. |
102" whip
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:03:04 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: 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? Then the only thing left to do is buy the antenna. Get on with it. |
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) 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? Believe what you want to believe. I don't need your endorsement. |
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? Nope. No friends at all, tnom. Never did, never will. Well, I can see why. |
102" whip
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. So was the picture I posted of the antennas? |
102" whip
Jack O'Neill wrote:
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040301040402070807080502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gen. J. O'Neill /pre /blockquote pre wrap=""!---- /pre /blockquote font size="+1"font face="Arial" 73br /font/font /body /html --------------040301040402070807080502-- YIKES! |
102" whip
|
102" whip
+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. ******* Sorry I put little faith in S-meter readings. I would prefer a spectrum analyzer, a preamp and the test antenna to determine gain of the antenna. I'd prefer a Maserati |
102" whip
|
102" whip
wrote in message
... 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". Never had that problem unless I was shooting skip. |
102" whip
wrote in message
... 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. Without the spring a good (not RS) 102" won't bend that much to make a difference. I've always had one on my trucks over the years. We did have a freezing rain storm a few years back, going 55 to 60mph the ice formation had it bent pretty good. |
102" whip
wrote in message
... 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. ROFLMAO |
102" whip
wrote in message
... 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, That's an understatement! LOL |
102" whip
wrote in message
... (snipped) 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. I was hoping this would come to an end as I have Frank on my killfile list and I still have to read his bull****. Unfortunately I have to swallow my pride and agree with Frank, the 102" is king hands down. But if it makes you feel better Frank tends to either lie to prove his point or he simply has no clue when it comes to RF theory. He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try anything to get the bull**** started. |
102" whip
Volker Tonn wrote:
Jack O'Neill schrieb: Volker Tonn wrote: Scott in Baltimore schrieb: 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. Got news for you. Skip can be "talked" with as little as 10 MILLI watts!! Granted, you need a good antenna and all the patience in the world for this kind of power level, but it is done. The hams call it "QRP" You wanted to answer Scott? ***I*** do know that.... ....when conditions are good.... yep.........oops |
102" whip
Steveo wrote:
Jack O'Neill wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040301040402070807080502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gen. J. O'Neill /pre /blockquote pre wrap=""!---- /pre /blockquote font size="+1"font face="Arial" 73br /font/font /body /html --------------040301040402070807080502-- YIKES! yea, whats up with that?? |
102" whip
I remember back yonder in the late 1960s, early 70s.
I took an 8 foot florescent lamp and keyed up my radio and the 100 watt amp and locked it in transmit. Then I took the 8 foot lamp and held it next to my 102 inch whip. The lamp lit up full brightness. I was able to walk around 4 or 5 feet away from the antenna before the lamp would go out. It was pretty cool at night to see this 8 foot fluorescent bulb lit up and I being tossed it around. People on the road stopped to find out what the hell was going on!!! Amazing what a bit of RF can do!! Gen, J. O'Neill |
102" whip
I remember back yonder in the late 1960s, early 70s.
I took an 8 foot florescent lamp and keyed up my radio and the 100 watt amp and locked it in transmit. Then I took the 8 foot lamp and held it next to my 102 inch whip. The lamp lit up full brightness. I was able to walk around 4 or 5 feet away from the antenna before the lamp would go out. It was pretty cool at night to see this 8 foot fluorescent lamp lit up as I twirled it around. People on the road stopped to find out what the hell was going on!!! Amazing what a bit of RF can do!! Gen, J. O'Neill |
102" whip
"Jack O'Neill" wrote in message
... I remember back yonder in the late 1960s, early 70s. I took an 8 foot florescent lamp and keyed up my radio and the 100 watt amp and locked it in transmit. Then I took the 8 foot lamp and held it next to my 102 inch whip. The lamp lit up full brightness. I was able to walk around 4 or 5 feet away from the antenna before the lamp would go out. It was pretty cool at night to see this 8 foot fluorescent bulb lit up and I being tossed it around. People on the road stopped to find out what the hell was going on!!! Amazing what a bit of RF can do!! Gen, J. O'Neill Yeah, been there and done that. Fluorescent blacklight was more impressive. |
102" whip
Jack O'Neill schrieb:
kind of power level, but it is done. The hams call it "QRP" You wanted to answer Scott? ***I*** do know that.... ....when conditions are good.... yep.........oops And -of course- hams call it QRPP :-) regards |
"What's the matter? Can't you afford to take a gamble?"
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:20:30 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:26:51 -0800, Frank Gilliland wrote in : snip BTW, the offer still stands. On second thought, no it doesn't. After seeing how low the price has dropped for this super-duper stick that allegedly performs better than a 102" whip, I'm convinced that your tests were bogus and that you falsified the data/results for whatever reason. I don't know that reason but I'll bet it has something to do with money. Maybe you own stock in the company, or you're the dope in the shop that builds these things -- don't know, don't care, and it don't matter cause you and your antenna are worthless. Now go get a -real- job and quit selling snake oil on the internet. Where can I take a look at this antenna??? |
102" whip
"DrDeath" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... 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. Without the spring a good (not RS) 102" won't bend that much to make a difference. I've always had one on my trucks over the years. We did have a freezing rain storm a few years back, going 55 to 60mph the ice formation had it bent pretty good. Is it just me, or does 55-60 MPH seem a little fast for an ice storm? I must be getting old.... |
102" whip
U-Know-Who wrote:
"DrDeath" wrote in message ... wrote in message . .. 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. Without the spring a good (not RS) 102" won't bend that much to make a difference. I've always had one on my trucks over the years. We did have a freezing rain storm a few years back, going 55 to 60mph the ice formation had it bent pretty good. Is it just me, or does 55-60 MPH seem a little fast for an ice storm? I must be getting old.... Maybe he was in K.I.T.T.? |
102" whip
Steveo wrote:
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! Isn't Devo from your neck of the woods hehehe |
102" whip
"jim" wrote in message
... Steveo wrote: 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! Isn't Devo from your neck of the woods hehehe Those were sad days for music. |
102" whip
"U-Know-Who" wrote in message
... "DrDeath" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... 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. Without the spring a good (not RS) 102" won't bend that much to make a difference. I've always had one on my trucks over the years. We did have a freezing rain storm a few years back, going 55 to 60mph the ice formation had it bent pretty good. Is it just me, or does 55-60 MPH seem a little fast for an ice storm? I must be getting old.... I was in my 4X4 and it was only sticking to powerlines and such, the roads were in pretty good shape. |
102" whip
Jack O'Neill" wrote in message
... U-Know-Who wrote: "DrDeath" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... 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. Without the spring a good (not RS) 102" won't bend that much to make a difference. I've always had one on my trucks over the years. We did have a freezing rain storm a few years back, going 55 to 60mph the ice formation had it bent pretty good. Is it just me, or does 55-60 MPH seem a little fast for an ice storm? I must be getting old.... Maybe he was in K.I.T.T.? No way, K.I.T.T. would have nagged me like a wife : ) |
102" whip
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:29:20 -0600, "DrDeath"
wrote in : snip ..... He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try anything to get the bull**** started. Once again..... when did I say that? I searched google but only found -your- post with the alleged quote: http://tinyurl.com/ckvhb Please reference the post, or at least provide a link. ----== 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 Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:29:20 -0600, "DrDeath"
wrote in : snip ..... He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try anything to get the bull**** started. Define "talk". Is that a keyclown term meaning 12db gain such as the X-Terminator is purported to have over a 108" whip? Is it like "bird watts" which are somehow better than real watts? Or "swing" which is considered better than PEP? And by the way, 100 watts is illegal on CB. |
102" whip
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:29:20 -0600, "DrDeath"
wrote in : snip ..... He stated, and I quote "If you cannot get a cell signal you are unable to talk on 11m with 100 watts." He will try anything to get the bull**** started. Once again..... when did I say that? I searched google but only found -your- post with the alleged quote: http://tinyurl.com/ckvhb Please reference the post, or at least provide a link. http://tinyurl.com/ad8sw |
102" whip
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:59:22 GMT,
wrote in : http://tinyurl.com/ad8sw Oh yeah, now I remember. That's when he was making excuses to run a linear on the CB. Obviously he missed the point. But ignorance doesn't justify a deliberate misquotation, and if he actually allowed his wounds fester all this time then he should open up to his therapist, not to the group. ----== 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 wrote:
Steveo wrote: Jack O'Neill wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040301040402070807080502 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gen. J. O'Neill /pre /blockquote pre wrap=""!---- /pre /blockquote font size="+1"font face="Arial" 73br /font/font /body /html --------------040301040402070807080502-- YIKES! yea, whats up with that?? It's HTML, ugly stuff. |
102" whip
jim wrote:
Steveo wrote: 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! Isn't Devo from your neck of the woods hehehe I think those whack-o's were from Akron, right next door! :) |
102" whip
"DrDeath" wrote:
"jim" wrote in message ... Steveo wrote: 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! Isn't Devo from your neck of the woods hehehe Those were sad days for music. They were trend setters with those garbage can lids on their heads. :) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:35 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com