Aloha all,
I asked,
> "Just believe a real explanation about why is deserved."
And Earl has responded:
> ==========
> Since my explanation about a week ago I've tried to solve
> whatever the difference was when I first got the Orion and
> my later A/B tests.
>
> True, when I first tried it on 160m (which was not an A/B test,
> BTW) I was elated by the apparent results.
Oh, well ok, it sounded as if it were an A/B test, but going back
and reading your May 20th post, I see you did not claim it to
be, fair enough.
Earl continues:
> I've come to the conclusion that tere are two possibilities:
1) As you may or may not know, when I initially received my
Orion there was a firmware problem with the preamp ON/OFF.......
2) The other reason might be that something went awry with
my Orion.
> My Orion is now at the factory undergoing stringent testing. If they
> find something wrong with it and fix it and the radio performs like it
> appeared to in my initial test, I told them to cancel the refund and
> return the radio to me. And, in that case, the Orion will be elevated
> from its last place position on my list.
>
> That's where it stands now.
Outstanding!! Just as I suspected the entire time, hi. The
initial and test boundary conditions were actually unknown
during each "test", and the various, and much influencing
Orion parameter settings were not recorded, so we have
no idea what the threshold was of the AGC used (though
Earl has reported that he used the "prog" AGC in his later
test).
Where "it" stands now, as Earl has reported is exactly the
correct place. All is open to further testing AFTER we know
the condition of the test Orion, AND we have written down,
and reported ALL the conditions of the various Orion parameter
settings. This was all required in my engineering notebook
when I was at Raytheon, Zenith Radio, etc. in those long,
long ago bygone days, hi.
Earl is on the correct path now. Good for him!
Mahalo and 73, Jim KH7M
|