WorldwideDX Amateur Radio Forums

Originally Posted by HomerBB

1st Post

Once again, I am aware of my limitations, but the only thing I'm learning in this lengthy dialog is that regardless of the position either side of the debate is taking, the only real objective is the measurable results; how does it perform in the environment in which it is employed. I'm one of those people who have bought and thrown away antennas (radios too, for that matter), and it has not prevented me from trying another one, and most recently attempting to make one. I'm no inventor, so I simply copy what I've seen, ask questions, and move forward. My personal goal is twofold; learn a little more, and improve my listening/transmitting experience without paying the price of the production antennas. It's also fun.

What I've learned as a non-partisan reader so far on this thread is it's okay to mock processes, but impossible to refute results.
As I read I bear in mind that one's experience has never been the servant of another's argument.

So in this skirmish between the geeks and the jocks I await my personal results. I am following advice from each camp in the refining of my novice level effort. Who will win? the camp whose antenna works the best? Nah. Me. . . because next week I'll mount the antenna that's working so well on another vehicle, or another place on the current one, and the other antenna will do better.

As an aside, when I read various threads on various forums about all types of antennas regardless of whether the antenna originated in the lab or the garage, the discussion centers on WHY the antenna works.
Perhaps the geeks would do all of us novice antenna newbies a favor and take one of the jocks antennas and definitively show us with applied science why it works, or not. And when that is done you can show us why the bumblebee can't fly.

Ok, the point is that no matter where one is in their knowledge of what makes an antenna work, what we know is what we hear on our stations; more or less from our antenna. Or am I wrong?

I'm just looking for the fun, the right to say I did it, and the opportunity to share the tiny bit I can offer. So hopefully no one misunderstands what I've written here. Show me.

Homer


2nd Post

I had really hoped that someone would make their point with a combination of the science and one of the competition winning antennas. A war of words hasn't taught me anything new. I'd like to know more. Coily's antennas clearly work. Dumb as I am, I know the "dummy load" sound bite doesn't work here. No one is winning competitions with dummy loads. Before you become angry with my honestly legitimate inquiry please bear in mind that I do not have a horse in this race. However, as it stacks up so far all I've got to look at is the track record of the horses that are running. Science has governed the design of antennas for decades,and antennas that perform well conform to science, yet in spite of my so recent interest in antennas and why they work, I conclude that an antenna that doesn't work failed scientifically, therefore one that does work apparently has conformed to science;
all scientific disciplines accept this.
Why Coily's antennas work, because they do, will teach all of us more, I think. If our current understanding of science holds true, then we will need to learn about the additional ways that science can be applied than what we're familiar with presently.
Thanks,
Homer