In , lancer wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:59:06 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:53:01 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , wrote:

snip
At 27 MHz, any antenna shorter then 5 feet is a waste of time.
snip

Not true. There are antennas at five feet that will match or even
surpass a 102" SS whip.

Bull****.


This has been shown before. Get off your fat ass and do an actual
test. You will find that a Stainless Steel 102" whip can be marginally
beat. You can not realize this by reading a book! Get off your ass.

P.S. A 1/4 wave whip of thicker more conductive material can't be beat
by a shorter antenna, but my comment was about the common 102" SS
whip.

Using Mmana to simulate antennas;

According to Tnom, you should get your "fat ass" out there and to the experiment
yourself!






-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

lancer wrote:
On 21 Oct 2003 12:24:22 -0700, (Citizens
For
A Keyclown-Free Newsgroup) wrote:

wrote:
snip

Oh I see those shiny loading coils must really increase the gain
of
the
antenna huh.

I never explained why one antenna outperforms another. I just
posted
the numbers. You can draw your own explanation.


Oh sure I supose the 31" S- METER really proves the accuracy of the
test better than using Smith charts LOL.

How do you calculate antenna gain with a smith chart?

How about a polar plot then. Or do you think a 31" S-METER is the
definitive measurement? LOLLOLOLOL

Your test doesn't mean crap, and I'll tell you why. For starters, your -first-
test (that you failed to mention) using -two- receivers came up with
inconsistent results for five different antennas tested on the transmitter:

Yes it did yield a inconsistency but the inconsistency was brought
about by very close results judged by real people. Something you
should expect in the real world. The second test (31" S-meter) was
like a slow motion replay. It gave me the ability to take more of the
human factor out.

Regardless of the inconsistency it was still shown that a 1/4 wave
SS antenna could be beat by a shorter antenna. This was consistent
with BOTH receivers.

Tentec: F, 3.1 s units
E, 3.05
A, 3
B, 2.85
D, 2.7
C, 2.65

Kenwood: F, 2.3 s units
E&B tied at 2.2
D-C tied at 2.15
A, 2.1

This tells me that something is -definately- wrong with your testing procedure.

The conditions of this test follow:

1. All connected to Hustler Quick disconnects

That could be an issue if one or more of the connectors were not clean, assuming
they didn't use the same connector;

They all used brand new connectors

2. All used at 1.5 : 1 match or better

The match for each antenna was not listed, and I can only assume that they were
different. Regardless, what was the forward power with each antenna, and why was
that not listed?

They were all adjusted for a SWR null before the test.

3. All tested with a constant tone, constant power transmitter

Using....? An audio signal generator and a TRC-453? Was the radio modded? What
was the modulation percentage?

A transmitter with no alc set for a constant low power carrier was
used.

4. All used on a three magnet mount on the roof of a truck

Now there's a BIG problem -- improper grounding!

Then at least they were all grounded similarity.

5. All tested from a parked vehicle that never moved during each test

How did the radio get power? Cigarette lighter? Six feet of 00-guage superflex?
Was the engine running? If not, was the battery voltage checked before and after
the tests?

The vehicle was off without any reduction of battery voltage over the
very short period of the test.

6. All tested within a very brief time period of each other (15 sec.)

Save for the all-too-uncommon microburst, how is that significant?

Your microburst? The one that occurred when I posted this test?

7. All used a stationary Kenwood 940 receiver.

Why didn't you use two receivers for the second test?

Because it was not needed. The ability to store and review the info
was more useful.

8. The 940 used a vertical beam free and clear of obstacles.

Beam, schmeam. What was the resonant frequency of the antenna for the receiver?
What kind of match was on the receiver? Were all antennas tuned and tested on
the same freq?

Everything was done on the same frequency. It doesn't matter what
frequency the receiving antenna was resonant on. All the received
signals were treated the same.

9. A video camera and a 31" television was used to display
a (31" S- METER) and record the results.

Thirteen mile free and clear of obstacles.

At 13 miles, another issue you will have is radiation angle. I don't suppose you
measured that either, did you? Do you know why that is important? Because you
don't state the HAAT of the antenna for either the transmitter or the receiver,
nor do you state whether the 13/24 miles was flat. If you just wanted to get a
relative signal strength reading without the confound of HAAT, why did you
stroll 13 miles instead of only half a mile or so? All you needed to do was
clear the near-field, which most engineers consider to be six wavelengths for HF
(or 66 meters, a far cry from 13 miles where a lot can happen inbetween).

I just posted the numbers. They are typical of real world results.
It's to bad that you can't stand that 1/4 wave SS whip can be beat.

There are WAY too many issues with your test, and any or all of them could have
been a factor in your inconsistent readings. Looking back an those threads, it
appears that you already knew that, too.

I'm sorry that you are upset. The numbers speak for themselves. If you
don't like them then get off your ass and run a test yourself.

Oh sure I supose the 31" S- METER really proves the accuracy of the
test better than using Smith charts LOL.

How do you calculate antenna gain with a smith chart?

How about a polar plot then. Or do you think a 31" S-METER is the
definitive measurement? LOLLOLOLOL

The definitive measurement is the one that goes directly to the
source.

A S-meter is gets closer to the source than any polar plot.

This has been shown before. Get off your fat ass and do an actual
test. You will find that a Stainless Steel 102" whip can be marginally
beat. You can not realize this by reading a book! Get off your ass.

P.S. A 1/4 wave whip of thicker more conductive material can't be beat
by a shorter antenna, but my comment was about the common 102" SS
whip.

Using Mmana to simulate antennas;

According to Tnom, you should get your "fat ass" out there and to the experiment
yourself!

No Frank. You said that. Lancer does not disagree. Therefore there
would be no reason for me to tell him to get off his ass and determine
the truth.

You should get off your ass and determine the truth.

snip
Here's your assignment for tomorrow, Tnom:

Compare the resistive losses due to skin effect for a 1/4 wave vertical (27 MHz)
made of both stainless steel and solid silver wire of the same diameter. And I'm
going to help you out by reminding you to integrate the current distribution on
the antenna, and I'll even let you pick an arbitrary diameter and disregard the
taper. Show your work (and don't skip steps).

Not needed. I know the truth because I have used the antennas.

Here's your assignment for tomorrow. Get off your fat ass and test the
antennas.

lancer wrote:
On 21 Oct 2003 12:24:22 -0700, (Citizens For
A Keyclown-Free Newsgroup) wrote:

wrote:
snip

Oh I see those shiny loading coils must really increase the gain of
the
antenna huh.

I never explained why one antenna outperforms another. I just posted
the numbers. You can draw your own explanation.


Oh sure I supose the 31" S- METER really proves the accuracy of the
test better than using Smith charts LOL.

How do you calculate antenna gain with a smith chart?

From personal experience, the longer antenna -seems- to work
better. Maybe it's the more broadbanded part, maybe it's the
power handling capability without frying a load coil, or both.

What sucks is the tree pruning, with the long one.

To answer the OP, forget the twin talkers, they're too close
to each other.

--
http://NewsReader.Com/
50 GB/Month

In , wrote:


This has been shown before. Get off your fat ass and do an actual
test. You will find that a Stainless Steel 102" whip can be marginally
beat. You can not realize this by reading a book! Get off your ass.

P.S. A 1/4 wave whip of thicker more conductive material can't be beat
by a shorter antenna, but my comment was about the common 102" SS
whip.

Using Mmana to simulate antennas;

According to Tnom, you should get your "fat ass" out there and to the experiment
yourself!

No Frank. You said that. Lancer does not disagree. Therefore there
would be no reason for me to tell him to get off his ass and determine
the truth.

I see.... the truth doesn't matter just as long as he agrees with you.

You should get off your ass and determine the truth.

Like I said, I already have. YOU need to get off YOUR fat ass and find out why
your results were so inconsistent.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In , wrote:

snip
Here's your assignment for tomorrow, Tnom:

Compare the resistive losses due to skin effect for a 1/4 wave vertical (27 MHz)
made of both stainless steel and solid silver wire of the same diameter. And I'm
going to help you out by reminding you to integrate the current distribution on
the antenna, and I'll even let you pick an arbitrary diameter and disregard the
taper. Show your work (and don't skip steps).

Not needed. I know the truth because I have used the antennas.

You assume that nobody else has done any testing for themselves. You are wrong.

Here's your assignment for tomorrow. Get off your fat ass and test the
antennas.

Once again --- and try to comprehend it this time --- I already have.





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Radioman wrote:
How long and what type of coax?

Any length will do...

50 ohm coax.

I hear the coax length police are in town..

--
http://NewsReader.Com/
50 GB/Month