Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE=&quot;Rickideemus, post: 123894, member: 12677&quot;]zzzzzzzzzz... What was the subject again?Oh yeah, sorry. You asked &quot;How many other UHF antennas have you seen out there with a gain variation like this?&quot; So I provided two links with a couple dozen antennas, several with gain variations like that. Then you pick out one antenna -- the same antenna -- and make a fancy graph with no variation. :huh:To sum up, I have no reason to believe the smooth graph is closer to reality than the lumpy one, but you win. :bowdown: You make fancier graphs than I ever do (or care to -- I guess I trust graphs even less than raw data).I can think of a simple reason physical measurements might take a dip like that, with a given length of coax. I'm sure you could too, if you put your mind to it.On the difference between the 4221HD as shipped and the modified version, I read theory *somewhere* saying just pulling out the balun a half inch should add about 2 dB on average. Another guy named mugwai(sp?) said he reversed the balun mod and lost about 3 dB throughout on his spectrum analyser, or strength meter, or whatever it was.I remember now -- holl_ands said he simulated the unhacked 4221HD, but didn't post the results, cause he knew they would be inaccurate. Putting the balun so close was really a stupendous goof -- probably done just to stuff the antenna into the box for shipping.That's correct -- I read all 22 pages of that thread about two years ago. Mclapp(sp?) was another one who did some simulations, but I don't know if they're in that thread, or if you can even find them anymore on the net. There was another one ... name escapes me.I thought you summarized it well when you said:But you seem to trust people MORE when they spit out gobs of data on request. My experience is exactly the opposite. The gabbiest, most encyclopedic president in my lifetime was Bill Clinton. Man couldn't stop talking... breath taking knowledge on practically any subject. Problem is, he made it up as he went along!! Still an impressive talent though. :becky:Rick[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Rickideemus, post: 123894, member: 12677"]zzzzzzzzzz... What was the subject again? Oh yeah, sorry. You asked "[I]How many [U]other[/U] UHF antennas have you seen out there with a gain variation like this?[/I]" So I provided two links with a couple dozen antennas, several with gain variations like that. Then you pick out one antenna -- the [U]same[/U] antenna -- and make a fancy graph with no variation. :huh: To sum up, I have no reason to believe the smooth graph is closer to reality than the lumpy one, but you win. :bowdown: You make fancier graphs than I ever do (or care to -- I guess I trust graphs even less than raw data). I can think of a simple reason physical measurements might take a dip like that, with a given length of coax. I'm sure you could too, if you put your mind to it. On the difference between the 4221HD as shipped and the modified version, I read theory [I]*somewhere*[/I] saying just pulling out the balun a half inch should add about 2 dB on average. Another guy named mugwai(sp?) said he reversed the balun mod and lost about 3 dB throughout on his spectrum analyser, or strength meter, or whatever it was. I remember now -- holl_ands said he simulated the unhacked 4221HD, but didn't post the results, cause he knew they would be inaccurate. Putting the balun so close was really a stupendous goof -- probably done just to stuff the antenna into the box for shipping. That's correct -- I read all 22 pages of that thread about two years ago. Mclapp(sp?) was another one who did some simulations, but I don't know if they're in that thread, or if you can even find them anymore on the net. There was another one ... name escapes me. I thought you summarized it well when you said: But you seem to trust people MORE when they spit out gobs of data on request. My experience is exactly the opposite. The gabbiest, most encyclopedic president in my lifetime was Bill Clinton. Man couldn't stop talking... breath taking knowledge on practically any subject. Problem is, [I]he made it up as he went along!![/I] Still an impressive talent though. :becky: Rick[/QUOTE]

Name

Verification