Topband
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Topband: Lab style comparison results on 160m small lot antennachang

To: "TopBand List" <topband@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: Topband: Lab style comparison results on 160m small lot antennachanges.
From: "Tom W8JI" <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Reply-to: Tom W8JI <w8ji@w8ji.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:13:14 -0500
List-post: <topband@contesting.com">mailto:topband@contesting.com>

----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Olinger K2AV" <olinger@bellsouth.net>
To: "TopBand List" <topband@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:25 PM
Subject: Topband: Lab style comparison results on 160m small lot antennachanges.


A prior poster, lamenting the nature of FCP success reports, wrote:

"Who has done that, with only a radial change, against an unchanged
reference antenna that is in the far field of the antenna under test.
[Where's the post with the details] ?"

Perfectly logical question.  We all would like that answered with posts
listing lab grade experiments.


Because of antenna size, laboratory measurements are impossible on lower bands. For that reason we can't make lab-style comparisons.

There is one thing, though, that we probably all agree on.

If more than one thing that can affect results changes in an unknown way in any test or experiment, like the ionosphere or reworking an entire antenna system from less-than-good system to a new one, we really don't know what caused the change or if any one particular thing was responsible for the change.

If we A-B against any unchanged reference, we at least know which was better than the reference and how much better. None of this requires a lab, precise equipment, is unreasonable, or is in the most remote way unfair. It just requires reasonable methods.

73 Tom
_______________________________________________
Stew Perry Topband Distance Challenge coming on December 29th.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>