Whoa there, Joe. Dave is perfectly entitled to his skepticism, just as
the vendors are entitled not to answer questions if they don't want to.
You're too young to remember the absurd claims that Gotham used to make
for their antennas, or for that matter the craziness that most amateur
antenna manufacturers used to inflict on us in the 80s and 90s.
One of the truly lasting contributions that Force12 made was
clarification of the difference between dB gain (unqualified), dB
compared to an isotropic radiator and dB compared to a dipole at a
specified height above ground. God knows those numbers could still be
fiddled (modeling over perfect ground, etc.) but they are a lot more
concrete than claims of "significantly" reduced man-made noise.
73, Pete N4ZR
Check out the Reverse Beacon Network at
http://reversebeacon.net,
blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com.
For spots, please go to your favorite
ARC V6 or VE7CC DX cluster node.
On 3/20/2013 3:35 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
When the information is in the public domain it is not the job of
any vendor to regurgitate it in the form and place you want. Just
because an antenna manufacturer chooses not to reprint Kraus, et. al.
or J. C Maxwell on his web page doesn't mean that the designs derived
from their work and others are not valid or verifiable.
The mindset of so many people that they are *entitled* to personal
answers to every question the moment and in the form they desire just
because they choose to question rather than seek the information on
their own. This is so symptomatic of the ills of modern society.
Just a few years ago rather than demand "push" information, someone
with a real interest in the subject would have gone to the library and
read the journals where they would have found the answers in articles
reviewed by editors of the caliber of G(M)3SEK and other experts.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 3/20/2013 2:51 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
Uhh ... the burden is NOT on me to substantiate any vendor's claims for
performance. It's on him, and until he does so, I will remain the
skeptic when I see things that have generally been debunked elsewhere,
such as the claim that a loop driven element significantly reduces
reception of man-made noise.
From http://www.g0ksc.co.uk/intro-lfa.html :
"Additionally, the close (sic) loop at the feedpoint deems the LFA less
susceptible to man-made noise and static."
73,
Dave AB7E
On 3/20/2013 11:13 AM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
If these antennas have been so extensively modeled and optimized,
there should be a clear comparison available that would tell us
whether the difference warrants the hype.
Do just a little literature search for yourself rather than expect
that UPS will deliver a box of books customized for your skepticism.
There have been dozens of patterns posted on Justin's personal web
site over the last couple years as well as journals in the area and
web sites of other antenna developers. The data is out there but
nobody is going to spoon feed the skeptics.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|