| Index | Thread | Archive | Jul-2000 | Archive | Send |
 |
  |
|
   |
|
  |
|
Let's not turn the towertalk reflector into rec.radio.amateur.antennas Here's my response. Certainly respond publicly if you choose, but I'll take whatever other issues there may be regarding my statements to private email. If anyone that reads TT feels my statements were way off base I'd be very happy to hear from you. I may be wrong. It's happened before. Well that's what my wife tells me anyway... >I refuse to publicly comment about the patent issue and Bencher so >graciously pulling their SkyHawk This would appear to be a public comment and I doubt very seriously that it was Bencher's idea to pull their antenna and go through a feed point redesign to come up with a new model. But it doesn't matter and I agree it's between Tom and Bob. What started this was a question of "what patent???". That information was relevant and the discussion interesting. As I've said before to you, kudos to Tom for obtaining that advantage in the marketplace. That's good business for the most part. >So I guess we, Force 12, still need to educate the general community as to the > veracity of ad gain claims and performance. You are the only people trying to do this? >Thank you for making a comment that refers to "we all" as I must inform you >that ALL hams don't share your opinion. In fact, MOST of US think modeling >as an extremely accurate way of predicting antenna performance. In fact >the government thinks it very accurate indeed. A whole industry, including >your friends you mentioned, think its accuracy is meaningful! I did not say modeling data was not meaningful as it is indeed a good way to compare designs. In fact I stated very clearly that models provide significant utility. You even quoted the text in your response. To embellish: What I said was that what the model predicts is not **necessarily**what you get in the real world. Unless the model is taking into account every possible permutation around a specific installation all you get is an approximation. A useful, perhaps even very good approximation, but not ***necessarily*** exactly what the prediction says on your computer screen. I'll stand by that. If I didn't think models useful for comparison I would not employ them in my station design. I feel comfortable saying that antenna models are not necessarily what you get at the installation. Why would anyone use things like YTAD if antennas didn't act differently at different installations? Since we're picking on semantic terminology, I would expect that "most hams" have very little idea as to how a model works or how to generate or interpret one. In this forum most participants would and that is great. >Well, Mike It's Mark, please get my name correct if you want to call me a jerk in a public forum while representing a commercial endeavor. >HyGain choose to make various generous assumptions about >the "Q" of the traps and therefore those models were of dubious value. I was not specific enough and I apologize. I have only looked at their monobander models which seem to be pretty good and are still freely available on the Hy-Gain web site. I agree with you about traps. I'd not choose an antenna using them. That's one of the reasons I've bothered both you and Tom for over a year trying to get a solution using F12 products. According to the ARRL antenna book, and the text of Dean Straw, there is perhaps some comfort with the loss figures for the Hy-Gain traps. I don't know, I take his word and your word for what they are worth. It's an interesting debate but perhaps not germane to this exact discussion. >Congratulations to Mike Stahl for sending you the files you needed to make >comparisons. How did those comparisons turn out? Very well indeed. Again looking at M2 monobanders. >Are you willing to guarantee that every antenna modeling file will be used >for "comparison only." We have had our intellectual property posted to this >very reflector and we have two companies in Europe now making our products >without license. It would be irresponsible for us to blindly provide our >antenna files to anyone who wants them. Our experience has taught us that >not all requests for our intellectual property are righteous. You tell me >how to protect our product designs and I'll be more amenable to supplying >those files. Natan, this is a poor argument for not helping people use your products in an expedient manner. Anyone that wants to reverse engineer an HF yagi has only to go measure whatever yagi they want to copy, or obtain a detailed list of the parts and assembly instructions. A more advanced individual could figure it out from scratch after seeing what was done. It's not rocket science and it's not that hard to do. People have copied antennas for a very long time and will continue to do so. If someone wants to copy it having a model only slightly shortens their time to do so. Now to be clear - I don't think for one instance that it is proper for anyone to take intellectual property and use it for their own gain. I've told you that in private as well. I hold a very nice patent that have been infringed upon and it is not pleasant. >Our policy concerning the dissemination of our files is that Tom or I will >make a determination on a case by case basis when asked for a file. I do >not usually decline file requests without good reason. The reason most people would want a model is to make a comparative study either for fun and education or to help with station planning and purchase. You guys want to play the part of leaders in the field so get out there and lead by example and help people make informed choices. >> and Mike at M2 has sent me every model >> I've ever asked him for. Others have been less helpful. Just how? Rhetorical question? I'm still waiting for the stacking data that you said you would send me at Dayton. You noted my name on your pad and I gave you my business card as well. To be more specific, I've spoken with both you and Tom several times about what I hope to do here and how F12 antennas might fit my needs/desires. It's unfortunate that not everyone thinks stacking two element yagis is sufficient. Regardless, at some point I simply have to understand that you are too busy with other parts selling antennas and towers to worry about a small customer. I'm not saying anyone is good or bad here. I'm saying I've gotten a lot of help from some and little from others. That's a fact. You don't really want a laundry list of the people I've queried regarding the station build up here do you? >C4 Tuning. You are well aware that people have had trouble with tuning the linear loading on these yagis and others using the same type of fabrication. >80M yagis You should be well aware of the disappointment expressed by at least two very highly regarded amateurs who purchased 80M yagis from F12. >Mark, what are you talking about? We have today more choices than ever. We're down to roughly 3 companies making HF yagis that are worth a darn. That's not a good thing for the consumer. That's also life in a small market. Perhaps you missed KLM shutting down and Hy-gain becoming a manufacturer of all band verticals? >Prices rise because of material costs, not because of margin demands. Prices rise when a market will bear the increased cost of goods and there is profit to be made. I do not begrudge anyone a profit, but prices *are* going up which is in line with my previous statement. Heck Natan, the C31XR, according to the latest NCJ ad is now being "introduced" at a cost $200 dollars more than it was originally introduced at. >If you feel commercial products are too expensive, build your own! Being done my friend - when I can't find exactly what I want from the supposed plethora of HF yagi manufacturers. It takes longer but it's fun to figure out what to build and how to do it. Since you asked here are two examples that made me think about costs and profits: A friend locally suggested that F12 charges $70 for the single element required to upgrade a C3 to a C3E. Perhaps he has the cost wrong, but if I recall correctly that would be about 15 feet of small diameter tubing and a mounting bracket (which is a plate and a couple U-bolts or rivets). Exactly what type of materials are you guys using?????? Another example: a 6L 36 foot boom F12 monobander for 15M is approximately $300 more costly than a larger 6L 15M beam from a competitor. Someone is either losing a bunch or making a bunch because the materials are not that different. Anyway, what you charge is your business, but commenting on such things should not be considered unreasonable. I'm fairly certain there was not a large R+D expense to recoup from the 6L 36 footer for 15M. Here's what I ended with in my last note: > I would certainly agree that in the small tribander world F12 has done a > very good job of providing products that people want and that is great too. Bummer that you got you knickers in a bunch over this, but I didn't think we had to candy coat a discussion held amongst antenna fanatics on a reflector dedicated to towers, antennas and all the warts and fun bits associated with them. As always I wish you folks the best success with your efforts. I still think it's a darn shame that the C19 doesn't have enough room to sidemount on 55G or I'd have bought three from you. I'd still have the same comments to make however ;-) Best regards, Mark -------------------------------------------- Force12Talk mailing list provided as a service by Force 12 Antennas, Inc. Force 12 Web site: http://www.qth.com/force12 Submissions: send to Force12Talk@qth.com To unsubscribe: send a blank e-mail to Force12Talk-leave@qth.com Force12Talk Message Archive: http://www.qth.com/force12/list/force12talk For problems with the list, contact force12@qth.com |
This Thread
|
This Author (Jul-2000)
|