> The following consists of a short study of reverse beacon values
> generated during the ARRL CW test on 19 and 20 Feb 2011. The study
> compares NR5M and NQ4I
The two major problems with comparing two or three complex stations on one
weekend, or even several weekends, is that none of us really know how those
stations actually work. We might know how models say those station's
antennas should work, but we really don't know how they actually work. A few
weekends or even a dozen weekends is also much too limited in time to know
what average conditions really are.
We can be sure guy lines, other structures and antennas, feedline losses,
common mode issues, and a host of other things are at work and unaccounted
for in tests. Patterns also can be a problem. Getting on the slope of a lobe
can make a huge difference.
If we want an unbiased accurate correction we first need to eliminate as
many unknowns as possible. The way to do this is for several stations to
install identical reference antennas that are the most reliable for pattern
and least affected by ground characteristics. Probably just simple dipoles
with nothing around them.
I'm certainly not trying to pick on you personally Rick, but anyone who goes
into any sport convinced he has the very best and everything he has works
perfectly, and comes up with a correction without carefully considering how
his desired changes affect everyone else, is really not doing himself or
anyone else any favors.
Everyone would be better off if we calm down and think through this thing
logically before messing with the system.
If we are going to be fair to everyone, we really should take a little time
to think through things and come up with a way to verify any perceived
problems and the results of any changes. Less time reacting and demanding,
and more time interacting, will make a better result for everyone. it would
be a same to force a change that messes things up worse.
CQ-Contest mailing list