Battle of the Ground plane #2

[211inthamag]

I wanted to give a update on the gain master antenna! I got it put up yesterday after work and it has a perfect 1.1 swr from 26.300 to 29.000 and then it starts to climb a little after that....so far I am happy but then again I really have not had many dx contacts since condition isnt the best here at the moment in louisiana, did manage to fet a few contacts in canada and a couple in south america..all with just a 2950dx- I have the antenna 65 feet at the base! Time will tell

 

[211inthamag]

Well I have been talking on the gain master today-- while conditions are very poor I did happen to talk with many locals with decent reports and shot a little dx this evening I heard california and oregon coming in there for a short time! Im not overly impressed with this antenna other then the fact that it is CRAZY broadbanded and keeps a flat match, that part I love! The part I didnt like is that I have my antenna 65 feet to the base and my buddy has his sirio 827 at the same level and was talking to a guy in oregon I couldnt even hear but then again he was working a ham rig and I was on a 2950dx lol! Im one to give things months to earn its review of what my opinion is, so we are going to keep on rocking this gain master for a while and have a new icom-ic 7100 in line next week and sport it out there -- again time will tell

 

[211inthamag]

Sirio Gain Master - YouTube

 

[211inthamag]

sorry about the poor lighting ...it looked different on my phone...I get a better video...any questions let me know

 

[hotrod]

Well I have been talking on the gain master today-- while conditions are very poor I did happen to talk with many locals with decent reports and shot a little dx this evening I heard california and oregon coming in there for a short time! Im not overly impressed with this antenna other then the fact that it is CRAZY broadbanded and keeps a flat match, that part I love! The part I didnt like is that I have my antenna 65 feet to the base and my buddy has his sirio 827 at the same level and was talking to a guy in oregon I couldnt even hear but then again he was working a ham rig and I was on a 2950dx lol! Im one to give things months to earn its review of what my opinion is, so we are going to keep on rocking this gain master for a while and have a new icom-ic 7100 in line next week and sport it out there -- again time will tell

nice report. dont try to review your antenna by using dx. use local signals.
perferbly guys you know ;'off' the radio. use am mode get some s unit reports
and miles from your qth. your bouddy might had a better location or maybe his
reciever cuts out noise slightly better. it be nice if ya had another antenna
at your place to compare the GM too . [this maynot be possible 4 ya ]

 

[211inthamag]

Yeah I have a bunch of antennas I can do a toe to toe with...I have done a lot of signal reports with my locals around here, but I have not done a toe to toe with any certain one...I will do one with the new SPT 500 next week since I have one coming in...I will also do one with a I10k as well!! Only reason I put this antenna up is because I was curious and so far I like how broadbanded it is but that's the only thing such far...

 

[211inthamag]

Sirio gain master #2 - YouTube

 

[211inthamag]

Im going to have to give this Gain master some flowers...talked to a friend of mine on 27.400 lsb where we hang out mostly, he is about 85 miles from me usually I have a hard time hearing him before now I can pull him out and with me tossing 30 watts his way he said he has a fantastic copy on me..so far working dx with this antenna has been a breeze..along with ground waving

 

[Shockwave]

Im going to have to give this Gain master some flowers...talked to a friend of mine on 27.400 lsb where we hang out mostly, he is about 85 miles from me usually I have a hard time hearing him before now I can pull him out and with me tossing 30 watts his way he said he has a fantastic copy on me..so far working dx with this antenna has been a breeze..along with ground waving

That's where this antenna and others like the Sigma shines. When the antenna develops a more compressed primary lobe on the horizon, the guy across town doesn't see you're signal going up. DX is notoriously unstable for testing signals too. But that guy 85 miles away that you had trouble hearing before pops out of the speaker clearly now.

In the absence of expensive test equipment, this type of distant contact is about the best way to test an antennas performance. Ignore the signal meter bouncing around on SSB. Put your ear to the speaker and see if you can hear what you couldn't or was difficult to hear before.

 

[Marconi]

Donald, I have to say you guys are consistent with the bias that affects us all.

My lecture for the day.

I think what 211, just reported here is the same sorta thing you and many others go nuts over repeatedly with me. When old Grampa reported his signal reports you didn't like what he reported, but you really didn't know exactly what he was doing either. When Grampa started doing his video's to help support what he saw on his radio, and support the paper reports he made just to help those interested to visualize in real time, where you actually saw what Gampa was doing, y'all went even more berserk and those events clouded your thinking even more.

You guys were no longer even trying to be objective regarding other ideas...except for your own.

I and 211 were just CB'rs doing what many CB'rs do with the tools they have to work with.

I have reports of talking to San Antonino, 200 miles, Waco 125 miles away, St Augustine on the Louisiana border 200 miles away, Bridge City, Louisiana 200, miles away, Franklin over a 100 miles away, all over Central and East Texas, and I don't have any trouble unless I can't hear a station. Over time this has happened with all my antennas up and one time or the other, and I have never realized one antenna was making a copy while another was not.

At times I do hear a little difference, and at times that difference is in the range of full copy vs. limited copy. But, I had enough sense to realize those events where at relatively low signal levels where the contacts, at best, where possibly in the typical noise level at the time...and for the particular antennas on the other end of my switch. For me, this was for better or for worse, a matter of hearing is true, but in those cases I most of the time could not see any difference in the signals...they were both in the average noise level.

I assume you are referring to contacts and signal in the outer ranges of the radio signals, right?

Those signals are often somewhat abhorrent in my opinion, and that is why I average my signal reports using the same contacts when possible, try and get as many as I can at the same point in time, and try and provide some details about the contacts location on my reports, but you smart folks out there just ignore the added info my reporting could provide, because your bias that says NO, is blocking you judgment...or else you would have automatically discounted 211, honest report...just on the grounds he used SSB. Is this the best way that we can compare things, of course not, it is just the way that I and 211, had available to test, and we tried to make the best of it we could. In my case there were no stations around me taking FM for sure. I had no AM traffic except maybe on 19, at the time, and none on other channels excepting they might be within the city and about 25 miles out at best.

You guys don't fool me one bit.

You did good 211.

 

[Shockwave]

Donald, I have to say you guys are consistent with the bias that affects us all.

My lecture for the day.

I think what 211, just reported here is the same sorta thing you and many others go nuts over repeatedly with me. When old Grampa reported his signal reports you didn't like what he reported, but you really didn't know exactly what he was doing either. When Grampa started doing his video's to help support what he saw on his radio, and support the paper reports he made just to help those interested to visualize in real time, where you actually saw what Gampa was doing, y'all went even more berserk and those events clouded your thinking even more.

You guys were no longer even trying to be objective regarding other ideas...except for your own.

I and 211 were just CB'rs doing what many CB'rs do with the tools they have to work with.

I have reports of talking to San Antonino, 200 miles, Waco 125 miles away, St Augustine on the Louisiana border 200 miles away, Bridge City, Louisiana 200, miles away, Franklin over a 100 miles away, all over Central and East Texas, and I don't have any trouble unless I can't hear a station. Over time this has happened with all my antennas up and one time or the other, and I have never realized one antenna was making a copy while another was not.

At times I do hear a little difference, and at times that difference is in the range of full copy vs. limited copy. But, I had enough sense to realize those events where at relatively low signal levels where the contacts, at best, where possibly in the typical noise level at the time...and for the particular antennas on the other end of my switch. Which was better or worse was a matter of hearing is true, but in those cases I most of the time could not see and difference in the signals...they were both in the average noise level.

I assume you are referring to contacts and signal in the outer ranges of the radio signals, right?

Those signals are often somewhat abhorrent in my opinion, and that is why I average my signal reports using the same contacts when possible, try and get as many as I can at the same point in time, and try and provide some details about the contacts location on my reports, but you smart folks out there just ignore the added info my reporting could provide, because your bias that says NO, is blocking you judgment...or else you would have automatically discounted 211, honest report...just on the grounds he used SSB.

You guys don't fool me one bit.

You did good 211.

Simply put, my bias stems from the fact I'm confident in my scientific methods of testing antennas. Do I make mistakes, sure. Do I know for a fact the GM and Vector are the two most capable omni directional antennas for producing long line of sight contacts... 100% beyond any doubt.

Call it bias if you want because it is. When something proves it's more effective than others in field tests, I am biased towards it. Similar to the way you're biased against me every time I disagree with your opinion based on what can be reproduced in the field.

By the way, thanks for letting me know the hours I've invested in trying to get you to understand these complicated issues were interpreted by you as nothing more than an attempt to "fool you". It makes me wonder who the fool is. Me for trying or you for ignoring?

 

[Road Squawker]

... It makes me wonder who the fool is.../QUOTE]

naw, most people know where the stupidity lies.

 

[Marconi]

Simply put, my bias stems from the fact I'm confident in my scientific methods of testing antennas. Do I make mistakes, sure. Do I know for a fact the GM and Vector are the two most capable omni directional antennas for producing long line of sight contacts... 100% beyond any doubt.

Call it bias if you want because it is. When something proves it's more effective than others in field tests, I am biased towards it. Similar to the way you're biased against me every time I disagree with your opinion based on what can be reproduced in the field.

By the way, thanks for letting me know the hours I've invested in trying to get you to understand these complicated issues were interpreted by you as nothing more than an attempt to "fool you". It makes me wonder who the fool is. Me for trying or you for ignoring?

I'm here Donald. Ask me a question. Give me a link to what you are talking about specifically when you suggest I led you on, or where I let you down some how. Are you sure I had you in mind, if and when I did as you suggest?

I've always appreciated your responses to me in email or on this forum. Frankly I sometimes complain that folks don't comment to me, and that is not what I want when I post my ideas. You are one of the few that will pitch in and comment. I can't always guarantee that I will always agree however. You do the same, and I appreciate that you are honest in your disagreement. I value your contributions here, whether I agree or not is another issue. I'm not interested in agreement just for agreements sake, or visa-versa. Am I wrong?

I realize you work and are busy. There are things that you describe that I am not able to connect to the issues I have in mind sometimes, or I don't understand the level of technology or science when you write or post. But it is against my nature to ignore you.

I think your disappointment is mostly based on the fact that I don't always agree with you and to be specific...you don't like my ideas.

Do you remember my presenting my Eznec model of a simple two element dipole and showing you how that I could configure it two different ways that showed the exact same results?

Do you remember that issue, and what I did to the model that was so simple as a solution?

Do you even remembe what the real subject of that project was at the time, an issue that we both saw as inconsestent and changing right before our eyes.

I did that because at some point in time right before I emailed you I figured this out using Eznec. I was curious how and why Eznec did what we both saw in that project I tried to get you interested in. I wanted to talk this simple issue out. Do you remember how that series of contacts ended up?

 

[Shockwave]

Is this the best way that we can compare things, of course not, it is just the way that I and 211, had available to test, and we tried to make the best of it we could. In my case there were no stations around me taking FM for sure. I had no AM traffic except maybe on 19, at the time, and none on other channels excepting they might be within the city and about 25 miles out at best.

You guys don't fool me one bit.

You did good 211.

If you recognize it was important enough to edit this line into the post, why can't you recognize other peoples testing abilities might be producing the more accurate results?

211's findings were not discredited for using SSB because he made no attempt to base his findings on an S-meter reading that jumps up and down like a Pogo stick.

Had he came back and said he couldn't hear someone he normally talked to before, I'd be just as disapointed as I was pleased he now hears people he had trouble hearing before.

211 took an entirely different approach using the same mode to gain more reliable testing results. He didn't try and measure what would be 1/3 of an S-unit change at most between antennas using his bouncing S-meter.

You also took things just as personally when GHZ disclosed to you that the Sigma does have appreciable gain over your 1/4 wave and 1/2 wave ground planes. You paid no attention when he told you this was hard fought gain in a free space environment either.

Instead, you sit back with your name invisible the last few days while you make posts discrediting other people's honesty, calling them punks, or being unfairly biased and ganging up on you in some conspiracy to stifle you.

All the long you been given free reign to post whatever you like regardless of the content. Chill out Marconi. There are people that find this technical discussion interesting and this site has more good information regarding the confusing Sigma than any other.

 

[Shockwave]

I think your disappointment is mostly based on the fact that I don't always agree with you and to be specific...you don't like my ideas.

Do you remember my presenting my Eznec model of a simple two element dipole and showing you how that I could configure it two different ways that showed the exact same results?

Do you remember that issue, and what I did to the model that was so simple as a solution?

Do you even remembe what the real subject of that project was at the time, an issue that we both saw as inconsestent and changing right before our eyes.

I did that because at some point in time right before I emailed you I figured this out using Eznec. I was curious how and why Eznec did what we both saw in that project I tried to get you interested in. I wanted to talk this simple issue out. Do you remember how that series of contacts ended up?

Being disappointed is not the issue. It's how one handles disappointment that matters.

I also fully remember all of our past correspondence and the very issue you spotted about the orientation of a given wire in EZNEC. That just reversing the start and end positions of the wire caused discrepancies with the currents even though the wire was the same exact length and in the same position.

Don't think I ignored you just because I didn't have the answer. You did the same thing I did with the phase problems regarding the Sigma. We informed Roy, he decided to ignore the issue because his EZNEC can't make mistakes.