wrote:

You don't need a antenna test range to determine relative gains.
I can only confirm the antennas I have tested. The R-S 102"ss
and the Workman X-Terminator are two of them.


Maybe so but what would convince an operator who has never used either
to pick your choice of an ant over the other? Just because you said so?


No. I said you don't have to believe me. The best I can do is to hope
that someone's interest has been sparked enough so that they would
do the side by side test them self. No one has bothered, so no one can
do any better than hypothesize.


Nothing you have posted has proven the relative worth of an X-terminator
being a better ant than any 102" whip. General consesus on this board
claims the 102" whip is superior to anything else. Not saying you are an
agent for the X-terminator but where are the hard facts?


True, the general consensus is that I am wrong. Years ago the general
consensus was that the world was flat.
hehehe hopefully you found an ant that is better than the whip and you
will go down in the annals of history as another copernicus. cheers as
its getting late on the east coast.

True, the general consensus is that I am wrong. Years ago the general
consensus was that the world was flat.
hehehe hopefully you found an ant that is better than the whip and you
will go down in the annals of history as another copernicus. cheers as
its getting late on the east coast.

It looks like I have to explain once again exactly what I am saying.

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.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 21:59:11 -0500, wrote in
:


True, the general consensus is that I am wrong. Years ago the general
consensus was that the world was flat.
hehehe hopefully you found an ant that is better than the whip and you
will go down in the annals of history as another copernicus. cheers as
its getting late on the east coast.

It looks like I have to explain once again exactly what I am saying.

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.


Then how or why is the RS 102" whip a 'bad' design? Heck, it's just a
straight, single piece of steel rod with a little ball on the end,
just like every other SS whip, even the ones on cop cars. So what
makes RS whips so bad that their performance is worse than a 5' loaded
antenna? Or, if that's what you can't figure out, then what comprises
a "good" design for a 1/4-wave whip? Selling it at a different store?
I hope not, since those whips aren't exclusive to Radio Shaft -- the
store chain is only a distributor, not the manufacturer, and you can
be certain that the same whips have been sold under other brand names.
Have you tried any other brand name 102" whips?








----== 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 =----

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.


Then how or why is the RS 102" whip a 'bad' design?

It's secondary and arguable as to why it does what it does. All one
really has to know is what it does.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 22:14:46 -0500, wrote in
:


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.


Then how or why is the RS 102" whip a 'bad' design?

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. But according to you, "we should
never trust the claim of others. You and me included." So dig right
into "secondary and arguable" since it doesn't matter anyway -- what
makes a Rat Shack whip such a bad design?







----== 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 =----

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. What's your word based on?
Consensus?

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.

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.

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 =----

wrote in message
...

True, the general consensus is that I am wrong. Years ago the general
consensus was that the world was flat.
hehehe hopefully you found an ant that is better than the whip and you
will go down in the annals of history as another copernicus. cheers as
its getting late on the east coast.

It looks like I have to explain once again exactly what I am saying.

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.

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.