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.

What is the antenna you want to test? Is it a "mr. coily"? Is it a
"x-terminator"? I can tell you right now those are keyclown antennas
meant to appeal to truckers and keyclowns. They perform like ****,
but they look cool.

On 29 Jan 2006 05:21:39 -0800, "Professor"
wrote:

Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db

So let me understand these readings you made... the DLX antenna was
your baseline?

Yes. It was the lowest and became the reference

Uh Tnom, you can't make something a reference AFTER the
test. That's not how you do a baseline.

wrote:

Im thinking of getting a 102" whip, I dont think I need the spring
because of where im mounting it. But is it nessesary? Should I get it
with the whip ?



Hi, been on CB since 1968. If you get the spring the whip tends to
bend back quite a bit
when doing high speeds. I used the spring only once early on. I got
myself a quick connect
and replaced the spring. Its about the same length as the spring. This
way the whip does not bend back nearly as far which is better for
transmission
and reception being it remains mostly vertical. And the quick
disconnect allows you to remove the whip quickly and
put it in your trunk!! Done this for many many years!! I'm very
pleased with it!!
73

Gen. J. O'Neill

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:58:32 -0800, Jay in the Mojave
wrote in :

snip
What was used for the field strength measuring device?


And what was used to produce a constant tone, 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 =----

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:54:40 -0500, wrote in
:


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.


Your sharp rhetoric is cutting me to pieces. Really it is. Oh dear, I
don't think I can take any more. Please stop.


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.


Says you and -only- you.


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.


Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
anticipated results -regardless- of what you stated as your reason for
running the tests, which was most likely a lie intented to add a false
legitimacy to the results. After all, why would you (or anyone else
for that matter) buy an expensive antenna when you expected it to
fail? That doesn't make any sense either, tnom.


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.


How is that charity, tnom? If the antenna works like you say then you
aren't out a single penny. You can afford -nothing-, can't you? Or do
you -expect- your antenna to fail the test? That seems more likely.









----== 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 Sat, 28 Jan 2006 21:44:26 -0500, wrote in
:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:04:47 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 09:40:34 -0500, wrote in
:


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.


I offered to buy one of these antenna on the condition that you will
buy it from me -IF- it doesn't perform as well or better than a 9' RS
whip as per your alleged test results. If you had -any- confidence in
your test results then there is absolutely no risk on your part, the
financial 'burden' would be mine, and I would end up with a pretty
good antenna (according to you). So how is that "asking for a
handout"?

I might get cooties if I deal with you. Buy your own antenna.


That's the plan, tnom -- or couldn't you understand what I wrote?
Here, I lay it out point by point:

1. I buy the antenna.
2. I test the antenna.

Still with me here? Good.....

If the antenna meets or exceeds the performance of a Radio Shack 102"
SS whip then I post the results with an apology, end of story, exit
stage left, case closed.

BUT....

If the antenna -fails- then you buy the antenna for the price I paid.
Like I said in the other post, I'll even pay shipping. Do want a ham
to monitor the test and provide independent verification of the
results? I'm sure that won't be a problem.

So the -=ONLY=- way my test will cost you ANYTHING is if the antenna
fails to perform according to the results of your test.

Now is there anything about my proposal that you don't understand?

Is there .....ANYONE..... in this newsgroup who doesn't understand
what I just proposed?


So what'll it be, tnom? Are you going to back up your test or continue
to play stupid?








----== 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 =----

I might get cooties if I deal with you. Buy your own antenna.


That's the plan, tnom -- or couldn't you understand what I wrote?
Here, I lay it out point by point:

1. I buy the antenna.
2. I test the antenna.

Still with me here? Good.....

If the antenna meets or exceeds the performance of a Radio Shack 102"
SS whip then I post the results with an apology, end of story, exit
stage left, case closed.

BUT....

No but.

If the antenna -fails- then you buy the antenna for the price I paid.
Like I said in the other post, I'll even pay shipping. Do want a ham
to monitor the test and provide independent verification of the
results? I'm sure that won't be a problem.

So the -=ONLY=- way my test will cost you ANYTHING is if the antenna
fails to perform according to the results of your test.

No Frank. You fudging the numbers to save face will cost me.

Now is there anything about my proposal that you don't understand?

I understand A L the ramifications of you doing this test. I will take
no financial responsibility from some one I do not trust.

Is there .....ANYONE..... in this newsgroup who doesn't understand
what I just proposed?

They understand that your history is much more problematic than mine,
so if you really want to debunk me then take the bull by the horns and
buy the antennas.

So what'll it be, tnom? Are you going to back up your test or continue
to play stupid?

I've backed my tests by exposing them to a newsgroup and encouraging
others to do the same test. What have you done? Nothing.

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 18:46:41 -0800, Frank Gilliland
wrote in
:

snip
I've suggested reasons for the results, but admitted that I don't have
a definitive conclusion as to WHY the results were as is,nor do I have
to in order to post the results.


What's the difference between that and peddling snake-oil?

Because I admit that I am not sure of the reasons for the result but I
am sure of the result. I am not peddling anything other than the
truth. You don't have to buy it.


So the truth is that you have no idea why you got the results that you
did, correct?


I'll take your silence as a passive confirmation.








----== 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 =----

You would change your numbers to justify your argument. That is if you
would ever run a test.


Then why even waste your time telling me to run the test? You're not
making any sense, tnom. My guess is that you changed -your- numbers,
or fudged them during the test, to make them consistent with your
anticipated results

Well then you don't know the history behind me running the antenna
tests. Could it be that I wanted to debunk the X-terminator?

Guess what? I did want to debunk it, but I couldn't. Numbers don't
lie, just people. Sound familiar?

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 07:58:32 -0800, Jay in the Mojave
wrote:

wrote:

On 29 Jan 2006 05:21:39 -0800, "Professor"
wrote:


Radio Shack DLX magmount .................... 0db
K-40 .................................................. ....... .8db
Radio Shack 4.5' center load .................. 1.4db
5' Firestik ................................................ 3db
6.5" Hustler top load ............................... 4db
108' Stainless Steel whip ........................ 4.5db
7' Firestik .................................................. . 5db

So let me understand these readings you made... the DLX antenna was
your baseline?


Yes. It was the lowest and became the reference

Hello Tnom:

Good going doing the testing. There are a lot of guys out there that do
not test anything and just recite books. Usually the guys who write the
books aren't the guys who design and test the antennas. And that testing
data is held quiet in the companies files.

I hear this recited stuff all the time. But theres no substitute for
hands on testing and comparison testing.

What was used for the field strength measuring device?

This test was done with an in sight very low power remote transmitter
located about 200 yards away. A regular CB was used with low
readings on the S-meter to give me a relative field strength. The
exact S numbers were noted. Then next step was to calibrate the
readings.

The db calculation were computed after taking the same CB and exciting
it with a variable power transmitter to see how the noted S-meter
readings related to power output of the variable transmitter.