What was used for the field strength measuring device?


And what was used to produce a constant tone, tnom?

On this particular test I used a Radio Shack 27 mhz remote control
car transmitter that was hooked to a oversized battery and left
running until it stabilized.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:12:13 -0500, wrote in
:


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.


Like I said, you can send a ham, or even a CBer friend, to monitor the
test and provide independent verification. In fact, I would -prefer-
that you send someone to monitor the test so you can't worm your way
out of the deal by claiming the numbers were fudged.


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.


Then contact someone around here that you -do- trust. Or can't you
find anyone that will lie on your behalf to save you a few bucks? How
about I do the test at the next local field day? I'm sure there will
be plenty of hams that would be eager and willing to see the results
of this test. Are you saying that you can't trust a group of hams that
have no other interest than to dispell RF voodoo?


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.


Hmmmm..... I seem to recall that being part of the plan..... let's see
now, where was that listed in the plan.....

1. I buy the antenna.

Yep, that was part of the plan alright.


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.


You typed some numbers on a keyboard and CLAIMED to have done a test.
Now you're playing stupid.

I'll go one step further: I'll buy the antenna and do the test, and if
the antenna performs according the results of your alleged test then
I'll send you the antenna for free -- AND $200 to boot. If it fails
then you just buy back the antenna. Is -that- a deal?







----== 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 Sun, 29 Jan 2006 17:46:17 GMT, 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

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

What? You can reference anything you want. Antenna manufacturers do it
all the time. How do you think an Anrton gets its numbers?

Do you even know what a db is?

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

Of coarse since the time of this test I have found
and measured even better antennas. Of these the
practical ones all use large diameter masting made of
highly conductive material. A large diameter, air spaced
loading coil. This coil is always upwardly located and the
overall antenna height

Damn Tnom, a 102 on a mag mount? You should be whipped. LOL

A homebrew triple magnet 750lbs magmount. Oops, I shouldn't have
mentioned it. Next thing you know Frank will want to borrow it.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
wrote:

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

Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
this bending. It is significant.

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:18:21 -0500, wrote in
:


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?


Bad attempt at selective snipping, tnom. Here's the -whole- paragraph
as I wrote it:

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.

Gee, why am I not suprised that you resort to deceptive tactics when
your test results are contested?

Do the right thing and accept the challenge, 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 Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:33:12 -0500, wrote in
:


What was used for the field strength measuring device?


And what was used to produce a constant tone, tnom?

On this particular test I used a Radio Shack 27 mhz remote control
car transmitter that was hooked to a oversized battery and left
running until it stabilized.


I thought you said you used an SSB radio with a constant tone? I also
seem to recall that your constant tone 'generator' was you whistling
into the mic. Am I wrong or do I need to go swimming in google juice?







----== 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 Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:41:35 -0500, wrote in
:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 12:48:59 -0500, Jack O'Neill
wrote:

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

Seeing how you brought up the bending of the antenna..........
Another disadvantage of the 102" ss whip is the gain lost because of
this bending. It is significant.


Where are your test results showing a "significant" loss of gain with
a wind-bent antenna?









----== 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 =----

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.

Oh, I have ideas but there is no way that I can make a complete
and definitive accounting of why the numbers are as is. I will not
even attempt to go that route. Going that route is like discussing
abortion. The only thing you'll get is an argument.

You typed some numbers on a keyboard and CLAIMED to have done a test.
Now you're playing stupid.

I'll go one step further: I'll buy the antenna and do the test, and if
the antenna performs according the results of your alleged test then
I'll send you the antenna for free -- AND $200 to boot. If it fails
then you just buy back the antenna. Is -that- a deal?

You are wasting your time. I want nothing to do with you or your
proposal.

What's the matter? Can't you afford to take a gamble?