There's no need for the sarcasam Rob.
Rick made some valid points based on his tests which should not be discounted.
Bob
K6UJ
> On Oct 28, 2020, at 8:51 AM, Rob Atkinson <ranchorobbo@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let me again emphasize that I compared received signal strength
>> (not SNR) which is a proxy for transmitted signal strength if
>> you believe in reciprocity. It is true that it is not extremely
>> accurate due to fading, but if the half wave vertical over bare
>> dirt were as poor as some are saying, it would be apparent.
>>
>
> In this case reciprocity may not exist. Also, if you are measuring
> skywave received signals, there are variables that are not being
> controlled. You also compared the radialess half wave with a 90
> degree vertical with some N number of radials. Compare the half wave
> with another half wave that has an adequate ground system. I'll save
> some time: Your method is flawed and not all that useful.
>
>> On 20 meters, why would I care about ground wave performance? Only
>> sky wave is relevant on that band, and we can't assume that the
>> two are necessarily correlated.
>>
>
> You didn't say what frequency you were on previously. Okay, conduct
> the test using a FIM of the space wave.
>
> Why do hams continually try to find a way around the laws of physics?
> Live with Mother Nature; don't fight her. Happiness and better
> signals will result.
>
>
>
> 73
> Rob
> K5UJ
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|