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" <[email protected]> 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
