Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 =---- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
102" whip
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 =---- |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
102" whip
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. Any one who has read your posts over the past few years is probably suffering from salt poisoning. I don't have to know why the 102" ss is lousy, just as I don't have to know why mercury is poison. All I need to know is that it is. 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? You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you would ever run a test. 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? I don't do charity, especially for you. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
102" whip
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:22:05 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote: 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. ah yes the experiment whose results would support some strange ideas (both true and not) one being that the Opes were right and Galieio was worng the other modern physics _________________________________________ Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server More than 140,000 groups Unlimited download http://www.usenetzone.com to open account |
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 |