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 =----

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.

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:54:29 -0500, wrote in
:


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.


The Michelson-Morley experiment exposed that fallacy.


What's your word based on?
Consensus?

Common sense and the laws of physics.

Consensus and incomplete laws of physics


Anyone who has read my posts for the past few years knows that I'm not
a person who uses the ad populum fallacy. As for physics, you have an
open forum to explain the -complete- physics behind the two different
antennas. Go for it.


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.


Where did I change your numbers, tnom? I am suggesting you make the
effort to research the reasons behind your results. The way it looks
now, you don't care about the reasons just as long as the results
agree with your opinion. That's not truth, tnom -- that's deception
(and it's a good thing you aren't selling these antennas because you
could be charged with the crime of misrepresentation and/or deceptive
business practices).


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.


I made the offer. If your test results are indeed "facts" as you claim
then there should be no problem reimbursing my costs if my tests don't
achieve the same results. Well?








----== 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 =----