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.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:40:17 -0500, wrote in
:


Okay, then how about this: I'll buy one of those antennas, and if it
doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' whip then you agree to buy
it from me for the price I paid plus shipping. After all, if the
antenna is as good as you say it is then you shouldn't have any
problem reselling it, right? So?

I said these posts have been direct. So I guess I'll continue.

I don't trust much of anything about you. NO


Well you sure don't seem too willing to put your money where your
mouth is......

I already did. I bought the antennas.

are you so financially strapped that you can't afford
to take the risk on someone who has not only bought and sold radios in
this newsgroup without any complaints, but has also sent free parts to
some on occasion?

Who's financially strapped?

Or is my identity so obscured that you think I'll
disappear into the shadows with your precious antenna, never to be
heard from again?

As you said " put your money where your mouth is...... "


I offered to send you a deposit and I offered to buy one. Not
suprisingly, you refused.


Naw, you're just making excuses because you are afraid of an objective
test of your antenna. I'm suprised you didn't try to pre-empt my offer
by suggesting that the results of any test I make will be biased, but
then again you are kinda slow.....

A test coming from you would be suspect, but it doesn't matter because
you'll never do the test anyway.


Gee, another soothsayer. Did you inherit Dave Hall's crystal ball?



Final offer: You find someone in my area with one of your antennas and
we'll go test them up on the plains. The testing will be monitored by
your volunteer so there will be no doubt about the results. Then I'll
post the results in the newsgroup. How 'bout it, tnom?

Final offer..........Put your money where your mouth is. Oh, I
forgot. You are financially strapped.


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.








----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 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 =----

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...

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...)

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.

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.

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/

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

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