Well, if you're too lazy to check advertising claims, you will buy
Mosley antennas with their overstated gain and dead last performance
in the W0AX/K7LXC tribander tests. Of course you would never know
about that since you would not buy an unbiased publication. QED
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 3/20/2013 10:28 PM, David Gilbert wrote:
That's hardly the case, and it's laughable for you to toss it off as
being an entitlement attitude prevalent in modern society. If Ford
advertised that one of their cars was faster in the quarter mile than
one of Honda's cars I'd want to know which car they were comparing
themselves to and I'd want to see the actual data before I made a
purchasing decision based upon that claim. I certainly wouldn't want to
have to search for it elsewhere, and I certainly wouldn't want to have
buy a subscription to Car and Driver to see if Ford was lying or not.
So if you're going to go that far afield to argue with me, please don't
bother.
Dave AB7E
On 3/20/2013 12:35 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
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|