Topband: Improve efficiency?

[Tree]

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 10:45:48AM -0500, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:

> If the research was NOT done with the kind of peer review and oversight
> attendant a PhD dissertation, it probably would not definitively serve the
> amateur community.  We have enough unvalidated opinions (however sincerely
> held) and over-simplifications in the ether to suffice as jist for reflector
> arguments.

If everything was nailed down so - we would only have Boring reports here on
topband reflector.  :-)

> If I were Lew, unless he's clearly maxed out on RX and done all he can do,
> I'd set pat on those TX antennas and concentrate on RX antennas.  On 160 it
> is often reported that there are people hearing our CQ's and calling that we
> are not hearing, that's WE'RE NOT HEARING.

Maybe not.  Since Lew's comments come shortly after the CQ WW SSB, I am sure he
was frustrated by hearing Caribbean stations who are just a bit above the noise,
but come back to every WB4 on the band before being heard by the mighty Echo 
Whiskey.  

It gets even worse if some other Oregon station, who is loading the random 
tower or two and a septic tank for a ground, drops by and gets the DX 
station on the first call.  

There are situations that must be dealt with - and this is one of them.  I 
admire Lew for persuing solutions that involve different configurations of
wire as opposed to different configurations of ceramic vacuum tubes.  

Guy is right about one thing - we often call CQ out here in the west and NOT 
HEAR anything coming back.  

Tree N6TR