Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
102" whip
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
102" whip
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 =---- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
102" whip
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 =---- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
102" whip
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Impedance of pull-up whip on SW Receiver? | Shortwave | |||
Why do you use a whip antenna? | Shortwave | |||
Blast from the past...........102 SS whip | CB | |||
Effect of whip diameter on resonant frequency | Antenna | |||
Sony Portable versus Tabletops | Shortwave |