Frank Gilliland wrote:
I mounted mine dead-center on the roo-guard and tie it back. That way I
can still use it with my camper, and it doesn't snag on the brush like it
does when it's mounted on the rear bumper and tied forward.

Yep, just be careful while backing up.

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

In , wrote:



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.

What "human factor"? Are these 'humans' incapable of reading a meter? How much
judgment does it take to look at the meter, see that the little needle is
pointing to xx.x, then write it down?

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.

Your results are moot BECAUSE of your inconsistancies -- they demonstrate that
you didn't know what the hell you were doing!

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

That doesn't mean anything.

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.

WTF is a "SWR null"? You used a bridge? If you did and they all "nulled", why
didn't you say so instead of saying that they all matched at 1.5:1 or better?

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.

A transmitter with swang and no limiter. Gee, what a suprise. Once again, what
was the modulation percentage? And knowing the radio is modified for swang, how
was the modulation percentage measured?

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.

Yes... inadequately. With improper grounding at the base of the antenna, where
does part of your signal go (ESPECIALLY with mag-mounts)? Right off the coax! So
you weren't testing just antennas, you were testing antenna/radiating-coax
antenna systems.


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.

You didn't say how the radio was powered. Was it measured at the radio during
transmit? If you used a cig lighter, you can drop a volt or two on key-up. If
the radio wasn't properly grounded, that will affect how much power goes out the
antenna just as much as SWR. And by 'properly grounded' I mean RF ground, not DC
ground. Well?

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.

In other words, you wanted to avoid the confound of getting dissimilar results.


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.

And not read from the meter, but 'judged' by you. Ok, Tnom.

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.

I don't know what "real world" you live in but it ain't the same one as me. I
have (and still do) use several different mobile antennas on several different
vehicles, and the 9' whip beats them all hands down.

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.

I have, and I don't have to post fudged numbers to prove it. Anyone can just get
on the air and find out for themselves.





-----= 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! =-----

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:02:58 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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!


I'd love to do that, might be a good winter project.

On 21 Oct 2003 14:06:51 -0700, (Citizens For
A Keyclown-Free Newsgroup) wrote:

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

Sure a polar plot would be fine, plot a 8' stainless antenna and a 5'
copper antenna and post the results.

In , Lancer
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:02:58 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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!


I'd love to do that, might be a good winter project.

Then we would have more numbers to compare with Tnom's. And winter would be an
excellent time to do it because of the ground conditions (you get snow, don't
you?).







-----= 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! =-----

On 21 Oct 2003 22:27:50 GMT, Steveo
wrote:

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.

As a rule they do, I think Tnom was just trying to point out that the
construction is also important.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:32:44 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
:



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).

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 agree 100% Frank, you raise many many valid points as to why this test is
really bougus.

Which points? You don't have a clue what Frank even posted.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:38:58 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

In , Lancer
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 14:02:58 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

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!


I'd love to do that, might be a good winter project.

Then we would have more numbers to compare with Tnom's. And winter would be an
excellent time to do it because of the ground conditions (you get snow, don't
you?).


Very seldom, we had snow on the ground for a couple of days last year.

In , Lancer
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:32:44 -0500, Neil Down
wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote in
m:



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).

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 agree 100% Frank, you raise many many valid points as to why this test is
really bougus.

Which points? You don't have a clue what Frank even posted.

Even if he doesn't, he should be able to recognize Tnom's subjectification of a
supposedly objective experiment, his inattention to detail, the lack of critical
information, and his failure (unwillingness?) to disclose his previous test and
it's contradictory results. That, in my book, is sufficient to conclude that
Tnom's tests are bogus. In fact, the results of the second test are almost -too-
good, skewed out of proportion with reality -- almost like he was reading the
S-meter backwards -- and extrapolation of those results suggest that the rubber
ducky is the most efficient antenna design, second only to the theoretical dummy
load! It doesn't take an engineer to see that much.






-----= 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! =-----

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?

No need

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

WTF is a "SWR null"? You used a bridge? If you did and they all "nulled", why
didn't you say so instead of saying that they all matched at 1.5:1 or better?

And they all had a 1.5 or better when nulled.

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.

A transmitter with swang and no limiter. Gee, what a suprise. Once again, what
was the modulation percentage? And knowing the radio is modified for swang, how
was the modulation percentage measured?

There was no modulation and there was no swang. The only swang
around here is yourself. You swang any which way in a attempt to make
a point.

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.

Yes... inadequately. With improper grounding at the base of the antenna, where
does part of your signal go (ESPECIALLY with mag-mounts)? Right off the coax! So
you weren't testing just antennas, you were testing antenna/radiating-coax
antenna systems.

I posted the parameters. A valid parameter is a mag mount.

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.

You didn't say how the radio was powered. Was it measured at the radio during
transmit? If you used a cig lighter, you can drop a volt or two on key-up. If
the radio wasn't properly grounded, that will affect how much power goes out the
antenna just as much as SWR. And by 'properly grounded' I mean RF ground, not DC
ground. Well?

I don't have to say what the voltage was. I don't have to include how
it was powered. All I have to say is this. The battery wasn't
straining.The battery wasn't dropping voltage between antennas.


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.

In other words, you wanted to avoid the confound of getting dissimilar results.

No. I wanted something similar to slow motion replay. I not only got
that but got the image magnified at the same time.


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.

And not read from the meter, but 'judged' by you. Ok, Tnom.

Judged and reported by me. One who would actually spend the time to do
the test. What about you Frank? You are awful judgeMENTAL. You have
reached a judgement with no test at all.

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.

I don't know what "real world" you live in but it ain't the same one as me. I
have (and still do) use several different mobile antennas on several different
vehicles, and the 9' whip beats them all hands down.

If it is the Stainless Steel variety then PROVE IT !

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.

I have, and I don't have to post fudged numbers to prove it. Anyone can just get
on the air and find out for themselves.

My numbers aren't fudged. They were just reported as is.

Tell me this. If the numbers were fudged why would I leave the
inconsistent results as is.

The only thing that is fudged is your mind. You fudge your thinking
and have ruled out ever being wrong.