On 3/20/13 7:28 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.
well.. I think that in the antenna literature, there's a tradition of it
not necessarily being "readable for free" but that's a whole 'nother
argument about technical journals.
However, it is reasonable these days to expect that if someone makes a
specific claim *on the web* that they would offer a link to where the
basis of the claim is verified.
I don't expect print ads to have footnotes and references. But there's
no excuse these days to have *web* literature (and specifically selling
sites) to have the evidence to back up a claim.
I don't necessarily think it's required that someone publish a NEC
model, but I would expect to see, for instance, some pattern plots, and
something that tells me whether it's a measured pattern or calculated.
If someone is going to claim that "NEC doesn't model this antenna", then
I'm really going to want to see objective evidence for the claim.. range
measurement data (an informal range is fine, as long as they describe
what they did, so I can tell if there's likely to be measurement
artifacts that provide the magic performance). And, just because
there's lots of crackpottery out there, I'd like to see an explanation
of *why* NEC doesn't do a good modeling. (a dielectrically loaded
antenna, or one that has geometric problems with NEC, are good examples.)
The bar (for me) is also higher if you are *selling* the antenna, as
opposed to just publishing the design for others to fool with.
(same goes for equipment, really.. I'm tired of people claiming things
like "laboratory grade" which has no real meaning.. )
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|