Coily,
I am completely neutral on this debate. I have no beef with you. I've always taken the view on most anything that a person's experience is never the servant to another's argument.
In fact, I heard the story of a fellow who, when walking by the fields of a farmer proceeded to tell the farmer of everything that was wrong with his fields. The rows went contrary to drainage, they were crooked, not tilled deeply enough, and generally everything the books told him was out of kilter.
The farmer asked the stranger where his farm was located, to which the critic answered, "I don't have a farm"
Well then, the farmer says, neither do you have an argument.
That said, in one non-scientific test of several antennas I had put together i found at least one that had a reported, and observed superior performance to the none loaded whip I tested in the group. I did not take it as a final report on all performance parameters for those antennas, but it did show me that from/to the same two stations, my mobile, and a 10 mile distant base, there was a circumstance in which the loaded antenna out performed the whip. Of 6 antennas tested only one of the loaded out did the whip, but all of them showed to be doing as well and nearly as well.
I'm not trying to educate you. I'm trying to educate me. I am just trying to learn while looking at data that seems to say more then is apparent in the thread by casual reading.
I've no beef with you, nor anyone. and I have no doubt your antennas prevailed in the shootouts. I'm trying to learn why for each case of differing antenna performances.
Respectfully,
Homer
