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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com