New aerial type?

[RandomGrinch]

Is "virtual displacement" the same as the swept volume (*) and virtually nothing to do with the actual volume of the cylinders.

(*) piston travel times cross section area of cylinder

I dont believe so. From what I can tell, it is currently related only to kW output - hence why a PHEV with an electric motor, can also have a virtual displacement.

Although in the past, BMW have seemed to change the nomenclature on a whim to suit the market segment:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BMW_vehicles (see under nomenclature)

 

[SUNRAY]

I dont believe so. From what I can tell, it is currently related only to kW output - hence why a PHEV with an electric motor, can also have a virtual displacement.

Although in the past, BMW have seemed to change the nomenclature on a whim to suit the market segment:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_BMW_vehicles (see under nomenclature)

Too ruddy complicated. Especially for a range of vehicles that I'll never look at in a month of Sundays.

 

[Lucid]

All this stuff about car engine sizes is distracting from the issue at hand.

Poor aerials and those semi-decent ones marketed by companies willing to bend the rules to gain an unfair advantage regularly have their element numbers overstated. A similar trick is played with gain figures in dBi versus dBd.

It's a sad indictment of the state of retail that the good companies had to follow suit just to look like they had comparable product.

 

[RandomGrinch]

All this stuff about car engine sizes is distracting from the issue at hand.

Poor aerials and those semi-decent ones marketed by companies willing to bend the rules to gain an unfair advantage regularly have their element numbers overstated. A similar trick is played with gain figures in dBi versus dBd.

It's a sad indictment of the state of retail that the good companies had to follow suit just to look like they had comparable product.

..well put.
And without distracting further, it reminds me of buying hifi from retail a few years back, where Watts RMS, PMPO, or MPO were all used. Direct comparison was not always straightforward!

 

[SUNRAY]

Poor aerials and those semi-decent ones marketed by companies willing to bend the rules to gain an unfair advantage regularly have their element numbers overstated. A similar trick is played with gain figures in dBi versus dBd.

It's a sad indictment of the state of retail that the good companies had to follow suit just to look like they had comparable product.

I don't disagree with any of this, however when a person comes on here asking for advice the last thing (s)he needs is to be told his 28 element aerial doesn't exist. Sadly winston1 is extremely good at making such incorrect comments and trying to force his various illfounded opinions across the forums

 

[winston1]

I don't disagree with any of this, however when a person comes on here asking for advice the last thing (s)he needs is to be told his 28 element aerial doesn't exist. Sadly winston1 is extremely good at making such incorrect comments and trying to force his various illfounded opinions across the forums

It was NOT an incorrect comment.

 

[SUNRAY]

There are no 28 element aerials.

It was NOT an incorrect comment.

A very quick google comes up with:
https://connectec.uk/av-tv-and-sate...PHu-TdUdI8AzOEIFtFwfnTfCGf9qtwQhoCSi8QAvD_BwE
Which is a genuine 28 element TV aerial.

There you go, it's already been demonstrated in post #22 that you're wrong and now you're still proving you're wrong again. Regardless of your repeated postulations, if a manufacturer gives a device a name of 28 elements then it is what it is called and 28 elements is what a customer orders and purchases, regardless of whether it really is 28 elements in the sense of what other RF crew call it or not. (In the case of the item linked to it is 28 elements)

 

[Lucid]

I don't disagree with any of this, however when a person comes on here asking for advice the last thing (s)he needs is to be told his 28 element aerial doesn't exist. Sadly winston1 is extremely good at making such incorrect comments and trying to force his various illfounded opinions across the forums

I don't believe anyone here holds the high ground.

AFAICT, we don't know what the aerial is that @Draughtsman is using, and so arguing whether it does or does not have 28 elements is futile. The only thing we can state categorically is that many aerials have their elements incorrectly stated because "more is betterer" (SIC) in the stupid world of consumer advertising.

The whole discussion is moot too because @Draughtsman reported he found his solution back in post #13 on July 9th. That's the best part of three months ago and, for me at least, that's roughly the end of page one of a four page thread. He just wanted to get his telly working again. By the sound of it a bit of new coax and getting the aerial correctly oriented for reception off the relay did the trick.

 

[winston1]

..well put.
And without distracting further, it reminds me of buying hifi from retail a few years back, where Watts RMS, PMPO, or MPO were all used. Direct comparison was not always straightforward!

There you go, it's already been demonstrated in post #22 that you're wrong and now you're still proving you're wrong again. Regardless of your repeated postulations, if a manufacturer gives a device a name of 28 elements then it is what it is called and 28 elements is what a customer orders and purchases, regardless of whether it really is 28 elements in the sense of what other RF crew call it or not. (In the case of the item linked to it is 28 elements)

The manufacture (if it was the manufacturer) is lying. That is a 14 element aerial. A dipole is one element in 2 parts. It has 14 dipoles.

 

[SUNRAY]

The manufacture (if it was the manufacturer) is lying. That is a 14 element aerial. A dipole is one element in 2 parts. It has 14 dipoles.

That particular aerial I linked to is indeed the manufacturers title and description. Regardless of who (IF anyone) is lying that is the title of it and how it is sold by everyone.
The interesting thing is that manufacturer also does a 14 elelment log periodic and I can just imagine your embarrassment when you insist on ordering as 14 element as that's the correct description (in your opinion) and the itty bitty thing a foot long arrives. I'm not interested if you intend saying you wouldn't buy that product for whatever reason, I'm just trying to explain the ordering/purchasing system, which applies to aerials, cars, tv's, infact everything.

 

[Lucid]

That particular aerial I linked to is indeed the manufacturers title and description. Regardless of who (IF anyone) is lying that is the title of it and how it is sold by everyone.
The interesting thing is that manufacturer also does a 14 elelment log periodic and I can just imagine your embarrassment when you insist on ordering as 14 element as that's the correct description (in your opinion) and the itty bitty thing a foot long arrives. I'm not interested if you intend saying you wouldn't buy that product for whatever reason, I'm just trying to explain the ordering/purchasing system, which applies to aerials, cars, tv's, infact everything.

Your argument then is "because everyone does it wrong it's right", is that it? On a similar basis then do we abandon all speed limits because so many drivers exceed the maximum?

How many times have ordinary folk written they want to buy an ariel or an arial? How about 'digital aerials'? Do we just abandon all standards because ignorance wins? That can't be right.

When a person orders from a Web page, they don't order a 48-element crossbeam or whatever. They just click the Buy button on what they see. At that point it doesn't matter what it's called.

For over-the-counter orders in places such as Argos and Screwfix it's often done by catalogue number. That way its much harder for the order picker to get it wrong. The product description is incidental in that transaction too.

In fact, the only real time that the description becomes important is when a purchaser is whittling down their product choices. At this point everything becomes about the headline numbers, but mostly because folk are in too much of a rush to bother reading and learning, but that's human nature. Regardless, I still don't accept that as sufficient justification for abandoning standards.

 

[SUNRAY]

Your argument then is "because everyone does it wrong it's right", is that it?

That is absolutely right, it's called progression or frequently incorrectly called progress.

How many times have you cringed at the use of the word 'of' in place of 'have'? Example; I would of got it from the corner shop.

 

[bernardgreen]

Regardless, I still don't accept that as sufficient justification for abandoning standards.

Well said. I totally agree

 

[SUNRAY]

Well said. I totally agree

Believe it or not so do I, but I live in the real world and find myself having to conform with the new norms. For example; we've only got to look at the list of titles for RCD's, sometimes the resulting confusion takes lots sorting out.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Believe it or not so do I, but I live in the real world and find myself having to conform with the new norms. For example; we've only got to look at the list of titles for RCD's, sometimes the resulting confusion takes lots sorting out.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the wild claims of storage capacity of the various rechargeable batteries sold out of China.