He was comparing the data from his last test with this one, you think there beams are in the exact same location? and if you read it alot of the guys he tested are using beams, again do you consider that a valid comparison?
Marconi wrote: "This test will appear to show the S4 does much better than when it was mounted side-by-side with the GM, but you have to consider the nature of the contacts made with both reports. When I include the random reports in both reports, you will notice the reports appear much closer
Hey guys, MrS makes a valid point here. I would choose to avoid using guys that only had beams if I could do what I want. This is not the only problem however, guys switch their amps on and off, or use different RF stages, radios, antennas, coax maybe, and who knows what. Sometimes some work a base and other times they're in their mobile. All of these potentials apply with varying results just like the beams can, say nothing about atmospheric conditions. This is the primary reason the sampling of contacts made must be as large as possible...to try and average out those physical things in testing as much as possible. Even an outside open antenna test range has limitations and variables to deal with.
The idea of just testing one or two contacts, that are cooperating with all the known or perceived variables understood and considered, is desirable, but that severely limits what I think I could do. Locally there are two guys that will cooperate in discussing such results, but every time I request such information from them I always have to consider their possible bias. So, in the boot, I prefer to take signal reports randomly as they come and let common sense work for the viewer regarding any results generated. This is why I put such detailed information for each contact in my Signal Report form, so such likely variables can be considered. Look, I have to guard even myself from being tempted with my own bias...a powerful influence in all humans.
If some don't understand the potential influences reported from a buddie's signal using a beam, a wire, or a mobile...then this stuff I do doesn't matter one way or another. I don't consider this science so why try to make science the point. I claim that common sense considerations play an important role in our trying to understand, and that part of human nature is still alive and well.
Example of the affects of the interactions of RF elements that are close and consideration for how we might tell using our common sense and imagination. Not having a complete scientific understanding of all aspects of the process should not prevent us from exploring the idea, and it might even be a fun thing to discuss with others. That is what I try to do, and hopefully I try to leave out the scientific jargon or issues, if lay words will get the message across.
Example: if we have a beam with elements that are close together and we do what we do to try and evaluate its effectiveness, record the data and then we make a change in the design, would you expect to maybe see the SWR match change, among other things...so-as we could tell such an influence? Probably!
Shockwave has given us an idea to test for similar setups like mine and maybe I'll explore that...which I've never considered. If not for this constructive part of the discussion, such a possibility would probably go untold while we get upset with words, or eating cookies and milk.
Or, if we used an analyzer that simply sees the match in a more revealing light at the same point in the feed line, should we not see similar result changes in the process of checking, or if there were no affects from the change, see the opposite?
Or, if I used some lab quality test equipment and understood its application, should I not also expect to see a more refined determination of the affects noted above, but shouldn't we expect these affects to at least be similar to the less scientific results in a limited way. For me this is desirable, and other's with more experience can tell us if this is bad science.
So, I used my Analyzer presentation above as my approach to answering my own question. Will my Antenna Work Sheet with a bandwidth curve plotted...tell us anything if interaction between my two mounts were an issue. For me this seems a pretty simple approach if it works, and we maybe we don't need a scientific understanding in order to figure out if there is a notable interaction that can be demonstrated easily. I think the proof is always in the pudding.
How say you?
