Aviation Consumer and Collision Avoidance

Jon,

I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type (which is
what we were using).


Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and ball,
covered by a plastic blade.

I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I have
learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the Monroy
unit.

I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
helps the H-plane radiation.

Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".


Thomas Borchert wrote in message ...
Jon,

I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type (which is
what we were using).


Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and ball,
covered by a plastic blade.

I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and left out
the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with these
antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people would
pay more attention. It would make the same point without being perceived as
a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your credibility
suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
communication that anyone who works in any field of communication (writing,
lecturing, etc.) is taught.

You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts at your
fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be more
interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come across as
what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't a good
reflection of who you really are.

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I have
learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the Monroy
unit.

I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
helps the H-plane radiation.

Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".


Thomas Borchert wrote in message
...
Jon,

I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type
(which is
what we were using).


Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and ball,
covered by a plastic blade.

I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

BHelman,

I know I shouldn't dignify you with an answer but

I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
helps the H-plane radiation.


That's why I said "I'm told". Maybe I was told wrong. In that case,
thanks for educating me. OTOH, maybe there ARE blade antennas which fit
the description I was given.

What is your problem??? I may have a different opinion than you, but
that's no reason to accuse me of "boastering inaccuracte facts." I dare
you to quote even one single post of mine where I did that. Kindly stick
with the truth regarding the content of my posts, please. Differing
opinions are a fact of life.

PS: At least you *have* my name to call me names with it. You don't even
use your full real name. Which, somehow, isn't surprising.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who make
such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is a
LONG RANGE shot in the dark.


"Jon S" wrote in message ...
You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and left out
the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with these
antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people would
pay more attention. It would make the same point without being perceived as
a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your credibility
suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
communication that anyone who works in any field of communication (writing,
lecturing, etc.) is taught.

You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts at your
fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be more
interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come across as
what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't a good
reflection of who you really are.

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I have
learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the Monroy
unit.

I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
helps the H-plane radiation.

Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".


Thomas Borchert wrote in message
...
Jon,

I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type
(which is
what we were using).


Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and ball,
covered by a plastic blade.

I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the communication, not
the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of us by
our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it, but
that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any help from
any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours. Obviously, you
can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a suggestion
for a way for you to make your points more effectively.

JonS


"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who make
such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is a
LONG RANGE shot in the dark.


"Jon S" wrote in message
...
You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and left
out
the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with these
antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people
would
pay more attention. It would make the same point without being perceived
as
a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your
credibility
suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
communication that anyone who works in any field of communication
(writing,
lecturing, etc.) is taught.

You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts at
your
fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be more
interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come across
as
what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't a
good
reflection of who you really are.

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I have
learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the Monroy
unit.

I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
helps the H-plane radiation.

Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".


Thomas Borchert wrote in message
...
Jon,

I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type
(which is
what we were using).


Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and
ball,
covered by a plastic blade.

I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

I think the point is being glossed over. There are those out there
who offer "unbiased opinions" but clearly stand to gain financially
from their opinions. For example, a dealer who sells a product has
little credibility when reffering to products they do not carry. Or an
"editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.

The vast majority of pilots, like myself, are not blind.



"Jon S" wrote in message ...
Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the communication, not
the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of us by
our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it, but
that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any help from
any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours. Obviously, you
can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a suggestion
for a way for you to make your points more effectively.

JonS


"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who make
such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is a
LONG RANGE shot in the dark.


"Jon S" wrote in message
...
You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and left
out
the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with these
antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people
would
pay more attention. It would make the same point without being perceived
as
a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your
credibility
suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
communication that anyone who works in any field of communication
(writing,
lecturing, etc.) is taught.

You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts at
your
fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be more
interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come across
as
what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't a
good
reflection of who you really are.

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I have
learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the Monroy
unit.

I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a ball
design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well as
free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
helps the H-plane radiation.

Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".


Thomas Borchert wrote in message
...
Jon,

I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball type
(which is
what we were using).


Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick and
ball,
covered by a plastic blade.

I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

I agree that we should all lay out our cards so everyone knows what biases
we bring to the discussion. But where are the biases you are implying on the
Aviation Consumer side? There were and are no connections to any of the
traffic monitor manufacturers other than the normal phone call asking for a
demo unit and doing a quick interview to find out if there are any points
about the product they especially want us to look at. We also had a brief
phone discussion with both manufacturers to clarify their position on use of
an external antenna.

The only other discussions between Aviation Consumer and the manufacturers
were several phone calls from SureCheck employees to the writer and the
editor. These calls were NOT initiated by Aviation Consumer. In these phone
calls, SureCheck asked (1) whether they could see a pre-publication copy of
the article (I believe Paul sent them one after the article went to the
printer) and (2) whether we would be willing to look at the most recent
version of the product (we said we would try it if they sent us one, and
would print something if we found significant differences).

So where's your problem?

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
I think the point is being glossed over. There are those out there
who offer "unbiased opinions" but clearly stand to gain financially
from their opinions. For example, a dealer who sells a product has
little credibility when reffering to products they do not carry. Or an
"editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.

The vast majority of pilots, like myself, are not blind.



"Jon S" wrote in message
...
Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the communication,
not
the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of us
by
our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it, but
that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any help
from
any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours. Obviously,
you
can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a
suggestion
for a way for you to make your points more effectively.

JonS


"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who make
such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is a
LONG RANGE shot in the dark.


"Jon S" wrote in message
...
You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and
left
out
the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with
these
antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people
would
pay more attention. It would make the same point without being
perceived
as
a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your
credibility
suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
communication that anyone who works in any field of communication
(writing,
lecturing, etc.) is taught.

You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts
at
your
fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be
more
interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come
across
as
what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't
a
good
reflection of who you really are.

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I
have
learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the
Monroy
unit.

I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a
ball
design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well
as
free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
helps the H-plane radiation.

Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".


Thomas Borchert wrote in message
...
Jon,

I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball
type
(which is
what we were using).


Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick
and
ball,
covered by a plastic blade.

I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

Guilty conscious there?

I was referring to the Monroy re-seller Thomas Borchert, and the
"editors" of publications who do "reviews" but their intention is to
sell their line of avionics, like Eastern Avionics or Aviation-west,
etc.

The point is every publication or editor will have some bias, some
more obvious than others.



"Jon S" wrote in message ...
I agree that we should all lay out our cards so everyone knows what biases
we bring to the discussion. But where are the biases you are implying on the
Aviation Consumer side? There were and are no connections to any of the
traffic monitor manufacturers other than the normal phone call asking for a
demo unit and doing a quick interview to find out if there are any points
about the product they especially want us to look at. We also had a brief
phone discussion with both manufacturers to clarify their position on use of
an external antenna.

The only other discussions between Aviation Consumer and the manufacturers
were several phone calls from SureCheck employees to the writer and the
editor. These calls were NOT initiated by Aviation Consumer. In these phone
calls, SureCheck asked (1) whether they could see a pre-publication copy of
the article (I believe Paul sent them one after the article went to the
printer) and (2) whether we would be willing to look at the most recent
version of the product (we said we would try it if they sent us one, and
would print something if we found significant differences).

So where's your problem?

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
I think the point is being glossed over. There are those out there
who offer "unbiased opinions" but clearly stand to gain financially
from their opinions. For example, a dealer who sells a product has
little credibility when reffering to products they do not carry. Or an
"editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.

The vast majority of pilots, like myself, are not blind.



"Jon S" wrote in message
...
Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the communication,
not
the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of us
by
our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it, but
that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any help
from
any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours. Obviously,
you
can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a
suggestion
for a way for you to make your points more effectively.

JonS


"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who make
such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is a
LONG RANGE shot in the dark.


"Jon S" wrote in message
...
You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts and
left
out
the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience with
these
antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true, people
would
pay more attention. It would make the same point without being
perceived
as
a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your
credibility
suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of human
communication that anyone who works in any field of communication
(writing,
lecturing, etc.) is taught.

You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful facts
at
your
fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be
more
interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you come
across
as
what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that isn't
a
good
reflection of who you really are.

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
You pretty much will say anything to promote your product, that I
have
learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The lws of
phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the
Monroy
unit.

I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close to a
ball
design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and with an
epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are therefore
more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as well
as
free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but also
helps the H-plane radiation.

Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy "Borchert".


Thomas Borchert wrote in message
...
Jon,

I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
better results with a blade antenna than the stick-and-ball
type
(which is
what we were using).


Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a stick
and
ball,
covered by a plastic blade.

I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.

Nope, not a guilty conscience, just curious. After all, you referred to an
"editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.
Given that this thread started with a reference to my Aviation Consumer
article, I wondered whether this was another reference to that. Glad it
wasn't.

And yes, of course every publication has some bias. But as a writer it's
really not that hard to be aware of your own biases and write an unbiased
review, especially with the help of an editor whose job it is to keep you
honest.

JonS





"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
Guilty conscious there?

I was referring to the Monroy re-seller Thomas Borchert, and the
"editors" of publications who do "reviews" but their intention is to
sell their line of avionics, like Eastern Avionics or Aviation-west,
etc.

The point is every publication or editor will have some bias, some
more obvious than others.



"Jon S" wrote in message
...
I agree that we should all lay out our cards so everyone knows what
biases
we bring to the discussion. But where are the biases you are implying on
the
Aviation Consumer side? There were and are no connections to any of the
traffic monitor manufacturers other than the normal phone call asking
for a
demo unit and doing a quick interview to find out if there are any
points
about the product they especially want us to look at. We also had a
brief
phone discussion with both manufacturers to clarify their position on
use of
an external antenna.

The only other discussions between Aviation Consumer and the
manufacturers
were several phone calls from SureCheck employees to the writer and the
editor. These calls were NOT initiated by Aviation Consumer. In these
phone
calls, SureCheck asked (1) whether they could see a pre-publication copy
of
the article (I believe Paul sent them one after the article went to the
printer) and (2) whether we would be willing to look at the most recent
version of the product (we said we would try it if they sent us one, and
would print something if we found significant differences).

So where's your problem?

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
I think the point is being glossed over. There are those out there
who offer "unbiased opinions" but clearly stand to gain financially
from their opinions. For example, a dealer who sells a product has
little credibility when reffering to products they do not carry. Or an
"editor" who offers unbiased reviews, yet has an interest in one side.

The vast majority of pilots, like myself, are not blind.



"Jon S" wrote in message
...
Sorry, credibility is controlled by the originator of the
communication,
not
the recipient (also basic communication theory, pounded into many of
us
by
our teachers many years ago). The recipient may choose to ignore it,
but
that doesn't affect the originator's inherent credibility. You as
communicator can enhance or destroy your credibility without any
help
from
any of us. It's my opinion that you are not enhancing yours.
Obviously,
you
can reject my opinion if you choose -- I was simply offering a
suggestion
for a way for you to make your points more effectively.

JonS


"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
Credibility is only as good as the creditors. When affiliation or
financial interests support an opinion, what credit do those who
make
such opinions really hold? I could be wrong, but then again it is
a
LONG RANGE shot in the dark.


"Jon S" wrote in message
...
You know, you'd be much more effective if you stayed with facts
and
left
out
the personal attacks. If you had said that you had experience
with
these
antennas and that in your experience such-and-such was true,
people
would
pay more attention. It would make the same point without being
perceived
as
a personal attack. As soon as you start a personal attack, your
credibility
suffers. This is not rocket science -- it's a basic concept of
human
communication that anyone who works in any field of
communication
(writing,
lecturing, etc.) is taught.

You clearly have some experience in the field and some useful
facts
at
your
fingertips. Use them without the vituperation and people will be
more
interested in what you have to say. In your current mode you
come
across
as
what is sometimes referred to as a "crank" and I suspect that
isn't
a
good
reflection of who you really are.

JonS



"BHelman" wrote in message
om...
You pretty much will say anything to promote your product,
that I
have
learned, even if it means boastering inaccuracte facts. The
lws of
phsyics do not change simply because you want to promote the
Monroy
unit.

I have seen the inside of Commant and they are nothing close
to a
ball
design. The ball is simply there to dissipate static, and
with an
epoxy blade they do not collect near the static, and are
therefore
more linear type designs including ground-plane elements, as
well
as
free-element designs. This not only gives a better VSWR, but
also
helps the H-plane radiation.

Again, I suggest you do your homework Thomas Monroy
"Borchert".


Thomas Borchert wrote in message
...
Jon,

I noticed that SureCheck does say they got
better results with a blade antenna than the
stick-and-ball
type
(which is
what we were using).


Ever cut open one of the blades? I'm told they contain a
stick
and
ball,
covered by a plastic blade.

I'm pretty sure your antenna was bad in some way.