Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#122
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() The stated objective of your tests was to evaluate and quantify the performance of various antennas, drawing conclusions that could be extended beyond your testing conditions. However, the technical level of the tests exceeded the limitations of your equipment, education and experience. Your methods were less than scientific, your data was superficial and contradictory, and your conclusions were few and highly subjective. When the data from your first test didn't meet your expectations you provided excuses. Your second test proved that your excuses were wrong, so you made new excuses. Your data could not be quantified, yet you proclaimed that x antenna was better than y antenna was better than z antenna. You clearly failed to meet the objective of your tests. You don't know why you failed, so you made excuses for your failure. When you bragged about your tests in the newsgroup I evaluated your failures one by one. You then blamed -me- because you can't accept and correct your own failures. I only stated the obvious. 1. After eliminating human error the A/B test were repeatable. 2. The SS steel whip could be beat by shorter antennas 3. The non believers could only sight theory and would never do the test themselves. OTOH, I did a simple test for fun, posted my observations, and provided my very limited conclusion WITH WHICH YOU AGREED. So according to -YOU- my test was both valid and conclusive. I only agree that if your "hair method" test is valid then my tests were even more valid. Yet your obsession with me pushed you to try -- once again -- to discredit me in a technical discussion. And once again you failed. And once again you will blame me for your failure. If anything you should be asking questions instead of trying to act like some sort of radio guru (which you definitely are not). NOW do you see how this works? Yes I do. You still don't understand that a 9' SS whip can be beat by shorter antennas. |
#124
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Steveo wrote in message ...
wrote: You still don't understand that a 9' SS whip can be beat by shorter antennas. Not by many. Which ones beat a 9 ft whip? |
#127
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
In , wrote:
The stated objective of your tests was to evaluate and quantify the performance of various antennas, drawing conclusions that could be extended beyond your testing conditions. However, the technical level of the tests exceeded the limitations of your equipment, education and experience. Your methods were less than scientific, your data was superficial and contradictory, and your conclusions were few and highly subjective. When the data from your first test didn't meet your expectations you provided excuses. Your second test proved that your excuses were wrong, so you made new excuses. Your data could not be quantified, yet you proclaimed that x antenna was better than y antenna was better than z antenna. You clearly failed to meet the objective of your tests. You don't know why you failed, so you made excuses for your failure. When you bragged about your tests in the newsgroup I evaluated your failures one by one. You then blamed -me- because you can't accept and correct your own failures. I only stated the obvious. 1. After eliminating human error the A/B test were repeatable. If the "human error" is inability to read a 5-LED S-meter, sure, it's easy to eliminate the error by not reading the meter. 2. The SS steel whip could be beat by shorter antennas Only antennas that were designed using temporal physics. 3. The non believers could only sight theory and would never do the test themselves. This is not a religious debate; i.e, "believers" vs "non-believers". Your test was supposed to be a scientific experiment with conclusions based on empirical data. You formed your conclusions without that empirical data. OTOH, I did a simple test for fun, posted my observations, and provided my very limited conclusion WITH WHICH YOU AGREED. So according to -YOU- my test was both valid and conclusive. I only agree that if your "hair method" test is valid then my tests were even more valid. You said: "Such an antenna always has fields in both polarizations. I never stated it didn't". You agreed with my -only- conclusion that the antenna under test had both horizontal and vertical polarization. You therefore validated my test, my data, and my conclusion. Yet your obsession with me pushed you to try -- once again -- to discredit me in a technical discussion. And once again you failed. And once again you will blame me for your failure. If anything you should be asking questions instead of trying to act like some sort of radio guru (which you definitely are not). NOW do you see how this works? Yes I do. You still don't understand that a 9' SS whip can be beat by shorter antennas. It can't. Not unless it is has multiple elements or it's made from a superconductor. Also, check out Landshark's link. -----= 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! =----- |
#128
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
snip
NOW do you see how this works? Yes I do. You still don't understand that a 9' SS whip can be beat by shorter antennas. It can't. Not unless it is has multiple elements or it's made from a superconductor. Also, check out Landshark's link. It only can't be beat if you're stubborn enough to never test it for yourself. You fit that description, therefore only one thing can be said. Get bent |
#129
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#130
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Inverted ground plane antenna: compared with normal GP and low dipole. | Antenna | |||
Ideas for a home built 2meter/440 dual band base antenna | Antenna | |||
FS: Connectors/Adapters/Meters/Etc. | Equipment | |||
Need HF / Mobile Antenna Recommendation | Antenna | |||
Wanted: SWAN Mobile Antenna Info | Antenna |