I think those were large differences between the least and the greatest, too.
Nope, I have no pre-determined expectations for folks results. I haven't seen those kinds of differences here, but I haven't really focused on that as much as on whether the antennas I build work well, or better than what I had done before. Because I have more interest in DX, I look for superior performance over an extended period of time. The most consistent local radio work here is all within 15 miles, and a little occasionally further out. Folks are not doing much radio during the outdoor weather season.
Nope, again. In fact, I think capture area is often not a factor at all. There is much more to antenna performance than that, in my opinion. For instance, a 1/4 GP actually has more physical area than a 1/2 dipole or A99, yet it is generally accepted that it has less gain.
What I failed to make clear, apparently, is that I drew the opening of this thread from another forum that was discussing the StarDuster. In that thread a member referred to the capture area in a way that clearly set it, in his opinion, as the most significant factor in antenna performance. I was simply saying I accepted completely the general principal of capture area, yet I went on to say it had not proven up as a solid inviolable fact in my experiences with all sized antennas.
If there is a way, it is likely beyond the ability of a homebrewer like me.
I have not meant to exclude modeling, but in fact, agree with what you just said about its relevance to this kind of discussion. I was simply making it clear that I wished for a thread that gave an equal hearing for anecdotal information as it would to modeling, or other scientific materials. In fact, I hoped that anecdote would set the tone, and that discovery by means of trying to figure out why one might have seen the results they had rather than folks just shouting ' there's no way because of so-and-so" when someone has just stated they they had.
Off topic, but as an example, I've read one several threads that it isn't possible to get extra channels from a Uniden Pro510, yet I owned one that had them a few years ago, and saw and spoke to folks on those lower channels who were also using the 510. I know this isn't either antenna thory or science, but it does serve to show that sometimes we don't know what we think we do because of a predisposition or bias.
Nope. I don't know why he sees what he does. What I said was that his numbers are more like what others report for their experiences than for what I, fr instance, see with my Astroplane,or you do with some of your antennas.
Go ahead and model them and serve up the results. DO it sideways and see. Do it upright, too. And when you are done try to figure out why people see differences in their antenna experiences.
As a matter of fact, at least two or three users of the GM on some of the British forums have pt up the antenna to turn around and take it down offering it up for sale because they saw better results from other antennas at their QTH. I believe one of them I read was putting his A99 back up!!!
Are they lying? I think not when you're shelling out nearly $200 for the GM. Something significant is afoot with the very real differences folks see, and saying "science so it can't be so" is becoming a convenient scapegoat for those who have no imagination.
One of these days I'd like to see someone post the results of their optimum tuned V4k tested with an analyzer. What will it look like? My homebrew Sigma4 looked like a doo-doo sandwich on the analyzer. I know the Qv4k had this quirky undulating SWR curve on the SWR meter that I never could tune out, but it worked quite well.
