At 07:45 PM 5/26/98 EDT, K7LXC wrote:
And I have omitted a lot of Steve's reply to my earlier posts
to save space:
> I never said that the [Mosley] antennas didn't work or radiate.
Our tests just
>showed that they 'underpreformed' similar sized antennas.
>
-more stuff snipped-
> Also, the main lobe takeoff angle is a function of antenna height. It's
>only 30 degrees at one height.
>
> Before I go any further - what was presented at Dayton and Visalia was a
>SUMMARY of our study. You haven't seen or read all of the information that
>will be included in the report. So far we have about 50 pages of protocol,
>rationale, data, results, etc. We address ALL of your concerns, some of which
>are valid. And you neglected to mention that our biggest caveat during the
>presentations (and the report) was that this was ONE test at ONE height at
ONE
>location.
> This WAS NOT a test over DX distances. Get a copy of the report when it
>becomes available and read it. THEN you can make more helpful criticisms of
>our test.
>
> What this is is a REASONABLE test with REPEATABLE results REFERENCED to
>a dipole. Yes, it's not perfect - we never said that it was. If you don't
>believe our results, we hope that you and other people will take us up on our
>challenge to conduct your own tests using our protocol to further contribute
>to this fascinating topic. But please don't make broad statements regarding
>the study without understanding how we got there.
I do apologize for seeming to come down on the presentations by Steve
at Dayton and at Visalia. I now see that the language and approach I took
to raising questions about their work was much akin to what went on at
University while I was there, especially when it came to the Physics Dept.
Grad seminars and new proposed paradigms!! Boy did new ideas get
kicked in the teeth there; rather as the questions which arose over the
big announcement a year or so ago about "life evidence" in the meteorite
found from Mars down in Antarctica. Many labs in the world are still
arguing about those supposed "life forms", while those initially making
the proposals continue to argue for life evidence.
However, there is no excuse for such conduct on this reflector, and I do
apologize to all who are still working to prepare the final paper on these
tests, and to those who saw and heard the presentations and found them
very useful.
My reaction clearly was more akin to that of the Physicists at Stanford when
the gang from Cal Berkeley came over, back in about 1954 or so, and
announced
they had really detected and measured a "positive electron"; I can hear the
laughter and derision of that data to this day. Guess what, they really had
done it at Cal, and Stanford did not!! Much crow was eaten as a result. (Am
pretty sure my recollection of this stuff is accurate, I was there!).
And I am now about to sit down to a possible crow pie of my own.
I look forward to the paper and what I am sure to learn from it; I have
benefited greatly from this, Steve's reflector, and hope I can continue
to contribute in constructive, and not derogatory ways as time goes
on.
Mahalo and 73, Jim, KH7M
On the Garden Island of Kauai
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|