Gents:
I've read this who thread and have to say that I think there are two points
of view that both deserve due consideration. The first is the viewpoint of
intense scientific measurement, the second is "gut feeling' that is backed
up by results.
I don't think there is anyone who gives both points of view more deserving
consideration than Randy, K5ZD. He obviously is a great operator, but he gets
results that are disproportionate to his relatively modest antenna farm.
Randy has a simple creed, "...try stuff, if it works, keep it up, if it
doesn't take it down and try something else." I think any experienced
operator
knows instinctively when something works, regardless of whether it is
condemned or supported by scientific.
Let me give you a personal example. I was in Iowa on an Air Force
assignment years ago. I wanted to participate in the ARRL 160M contest, and
wasn't
particularly concerned how well I did. A local farmer had a nice antenna
array, but no 160M antenna. He told me that when he wanted to work 160M, he
used
an old longwire that had been at the family farm since the 1940s for AM
broadcast reception. He said, "It works pretty good"! That proved to be an
understatement!
The antenna was strung between the house and a 50' high grain silo, average
height of about 45' and a length of about 150'. It sagged like an old mare,
and much of the vertical portion was inside the house! And dare I mention,
(heresy alert!) THERE WAS NO GROUND SYSTEM WHATSOEVER!
Just a few miles away on a flat surface of moist, black Iowa farm field, was
a full-sized vertical with an extensive array of radials. The operator was
a 160M fanatic, revered in the local area for his skill and his antenna
expertise.
When I started the contest and worked everyone on the first call, I thought,
"this feels good". It wasn't long before I started crossing paths with my
neighbor with the big vertical. It felt like I was doing better than he was,
because when we both called a station, I invariably got him first, whether
close-in or DX.
When the dust had settled and the scores reported, I won the section. I was
not a better operator, I did not have a better radio (we both were LP), I
can only conclude that I had a better antenna. Along with my unlikely win
came
accusations of running high power, yet I didn't even have an amp available.
So, go ahead, model that! Be sure to throw in the farmhouse, the pig
troughs, the silo and anything else you want. From every perspective, I
should not
have won. Yet within the first half-hour in the chair, I "felt" I had a
winner! Measure field strength, measure ground currents, have a ball! But
for
me, the real measure was an actual winning score!
I've heard many big guns say that they've put up antennas that should give
them a theoretical edge, only to
be disappointed. Software is getting better and better, but somehow, there
must be many other variables in play. We don't live in an Anechoic Chamber,
we live in an imperfect and compromised world.
In summary, I respect and believe the theoretical and its practitioners, but
I also give credence to the experience and judgement of those who measure
their results by qsos, zones, multipliers and final scores.
Paul, K5AF
**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)
_______________________________________________
Topband mailing list
Topband@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/topband
|