Total posts : 45366
Obviously, trying to experiment is fraught with danger. Not from experimenting, but from trying to ward off the antagonism of those who are determined to keep anyone else from trying anything new or ‘weird’.
Markk, there are well established procedures in science and engineering for assessing the outcome of experiments. One is called “peer review”, and another is called “replication”. Neither method has anything to do with antagonism. They are designed to establish the truth.
Well, certainly all you skeptics have not a thing to lose to let someone else try something. Whether it works or not will NOT HURT YOU. But you take it personally. Just like the infuriating nabobs who are desperately trying to get the FCC to make the antennas be at ground level, and who successfully made BMI, ASCAP, etc, begin pursuing hobbyist broadcasters.
I fail to see how anyone posting here, except you, have taken this “personally”. There is no connection that I can see between the “nabobs” you referenced and BMI etc.
I am dumbfounded at the lengths to which people will go to harm others, who have done NOTHING to hurt them, who in NO WAY are impacted by things being slightly different thann they want it, but yet do thier best to limit or harm the efforts of others.
I agree with you on this, but it does not apply to anything that I have read in this thread. The general tone, as I read it, is simply to ask for verification of the claimed performance of this antenna. Again, replication would be a wonderful means to demonstrate that this antenna performs as claimed. Healthy skepticism is not only desirable for the advancement of technology, it is necessary.
Your contributions to this board have resulted in a thread in which ideas are being presented and discussed and this has value. It is not realistic, nor is it a good idea, to ascribe motivations to the posters when you may not agree with what is posted. Your information and comments are welcomed by me but try to avoid personal issues.