I would add however (having experience here) that an incremental improvement to
a poor antenna can show significant results when you have a low baseline.
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 24, 2012, at 11:33, "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com> wrote:
>> FWIW, I have not heard or seen K2AV making unreasonable "claims" of
>> performance.
>
> Neither have I, nor have I ever inferred he did.
>
> My point, which was addressed to Steve, was pretty basic stuff. I don't
> understand how it gets changed so much.
>
> My point was, when we change **everything** in a system, including where the
> main vertical element is located in a very cluttered environment, and
> especially when we have a station that historically has reported over many
> years having a problem getting any vertical to work as well as a horizontal
> antenna, it is a very large leap to single out a ground system change as
> making a few days of operating performance feel good.
>
> There isn't any reason to extrapolate things so simple and basic into
> something no one said.
>
> I think it is appropriate and necessary to mention the following general
> facts:
>
> 1.) When multiple things are changed in a randomly cluttered environment, it
> is impossible to single out a single factor
>
> 2.) When a system or location has a history of being sensitive to antenna
> styles, it is probably not the most reliable performance evaluation site
>
> 3.) A few days or weeks of contacts don't mean much on any band, let alone
> 160. We all probably know this :-)
>
> No one should be offended by anyone's efforts to keep technical discussions
> grounded in reality, and it certainly should not be changed to something that
> was never said or implied.
>
> 73 Tom
> _______________________________________________
> UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|