[TowerTalk] InnovAntennas contact info

[Pete Smith N4ZR]

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 at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>