Marconi's New 2011 testing on same AT system

[Marconi]

Well guys, over the last few days I've tested my Sigma4 and my A99 by themselves, individually on the same mast, feed line direct to my DX 2547 radio, with no meter inline. These signals were taken over a period of time until I got at least 8 or more contacts that I have listed on my new Signal Report form.

I'll test my Marconi 7x tomorrow, and then I will install my Wolf .64 GP and get some reports with it. I've not tested this one since 2008.

View attachment New Signal Reports 022011 Sigma4 - A99.pdf

 

[HomerBB]

I took a look at these figures. When I looked for stations that were the same for each of the antennas I found only three recorded for both antennas. they were.these:

If the 8+ signals were to be figured as 9, and the 7- as 6, the figures would be

22/3=7.3 showing identical results for both the A99 and the S4.

Very interesting. So far, the antennas alone are giving the kind if results as them up on separate towers at the same time.

 

[gamegetter]

Actually marconi uses a half rating for the plus (+) and minus (-) symbols. So that for the s4 you would add 7, 8.5, & 6 for average of 7.17. And for the a99 7, 8.5, & 6.5 for average of 7.3. On the averages the A99 would have an edge on marconi's system.

as far as the individual data i would say it is too close to call wouldn't you?

 

[HomerBB]

Yep, too close, except to say the Sigma 4 is not doing it the way it's supposed to do it - much better than the A99. . . What a deal.

 

[Marconi]

I took a look at these figures. When I looked for stations that were the same for each of the antennas I found only three recorded for both antennas. they were.these:

If the 8+ signals were to be figured as 9, and the 7- as 6, the figures would be

22/3=7.3 showing identical results for both the A99 and the S4.

Very interesting. So far, the antennas alone are giving the kind if results as them up on separate towers at the same time.

Yep Homer I think you're right, I saw about the same when I tested each antenna on both mounts with or without the other mouned.

I do a + or a - when the signal is a bit over or just a bit less than the whole number. When I add the numbers up to get the average, I add .5 to the + and subs tract .5 for the minus.

When I take a smaller sampling of contacts I tend to get different numbers and that depends on the mix (weighted values), this is why I tried to use the same guys, so as to help balance out the comparisons from test to test. The affects of conditions may also affect the individual test results from report to report along with the human factors, but in the end I lost this control when Bill died and several others just stopped talking regular every morning.

With my new random reporting I don't think I'll see this issue testing each antenna one at a time, like the rest of the world does it. BTW, I'm trying to video each test as much as time will allow. These videos tend to be too long for YouTube, so I won't have any proof, so were back to square one.

I know folks won't believe the new results either, but that is what I see and I'll post it anyway...I figure it is at least better than "Deadwood" telling us that his Imax destroyed his A99 to his buddy down the road when he was 13 and test his daddy's A99 in 1996 vs. his own Imax last week.

So far I'm seeing just what I've always seen, my antennas all perform far more similar that other operators find. Of course the shorter antennas should be a little bit behind the taller antennas, but well see. Here is my Marconi 7x report. I sure would like to be able to test using two-way reports, that might tell something that I don't see. I've always assumed that antennas are reciprocal so it should not make a big difference, but sometimes other guys I contact do see much more of a difference in signals than I do. That said, I wonder if real test ranges test their antennas both directions, or do they just assume a reciprocal response.

I guess if Mr.S would splain' that one to us, then maybe it would help explain why for some of these questions. I guess a lot matters as to what each individual believes the differences should be. Personally I estimate my differences of .1 - .3 Sunits might convert to a range of 1/4 db to maybe 2 db difference, and I figure with most of these antennas that might be the difference we might expect. However, when someone sees 2-3 Sunits difference, I believe what they say, but I wonder how or what that could be.

View attachment New Signal Report 022311 Marconi 7x.pdf

 

[Marconi]

Yes Homer, gamegetter is right.

I too don't understand why the Sigma4 does not do better. On a few occassions, which might show up with some individual contacts, I saw the Sigma4 hearing better most of the time, but there were other times that were the opposite. For me, this is why more sampling seems to be essential to any success in such testing, while most other Internet reports generally talk about 1,2, or maybe 3 contacts at the most and most are usually real close also.

Ya'll have to realize, that the weighted average is not a cure-all. For example consider a report that happens to have only small signals when compared to another report that shows signals closer to S9. This testing is very hard to evaluate fairly in many respects.

 

[HomerBB]

Well, it's clearly a case by case situation where antenna performance shines or not. I have read nearly as many glowing reports on the A99 as I have A99 bashing. Clearly there are different results by different folks in different places.
I doubt there is a conclusive answer to which is best, except where theory says so, and even then, there must be a reason why the real scientists call it theory rather than facts. Nevertheless, i find your work interesting, and who knows, maybe in time to come radio enthusiasts will be citing "Old Grandpa" when discussing antennas.

You Marconi shared two of the reported contacts
Larry in Adams Flats, and Philip in New Caney with

9 and 6+ respectively. Both of those were better than the other two from those stations.
15.5 vs 14.5 for the other two.

Even the full randoms are interesting

S4 - 6.7
A99 - 6.8
&x - 6.7

What a deal.

 

[Marconi]

Well, it's clearly a case by case situation where antenna performance shines or not. I have read nearly as many glowing reports on the A99 as I have A99 bashing. Clearly there are different results by different folks in different places.

Yep Homer, and I tend to believe what I hear even when I might question how the comparisons were made. I also think Mother Earth has more of an affect that we consider as well.

I doubt there is a conclusive answer to which is best, except where theory says so, and even then, there must be a reason why the real scientists call it theory rather than facts. Nevertheless, i find your work interesting, and who knows, maybe in time to come radio enthusiasts will be citing "Old Grandpa" when discussing antennas.

I have to admit that many folks are not impressed with the A99. I have seen plenty of them that act bad, like TVI and such. That said however, I never found one with such a problem that didn't work well. I even destroyed one just to see if I could see a problem and the problem was poor and no tin solder to the shield. I fixed the problem and hung the inside of the AT in a tree and it worked fine and most of the bad TVI went away.

You Marconi shared two of the reported contacts
Larry in Adams Flats, and Philip in New Caney with

9 and 6+ respectively. Both of those were better than the other two from those stations.
15.5 vs 14.5 for the other two.

Even the full randoms are interesting

S4 - 6.7
A99 - 6.8
&x - 6.7

What a deal.

I'm not sure I understand your last comment, can you explain the 15.5 vs 14.5 for the other two? Both of these guys have a Moonraker beam and Larry also has a Starduster. They both have different radios and both run power, so I never know what to expect from those two. Sometimes I go back and change signals from a previous contact just because I might see a better signal later on. I have to make a judgment call sometimes, and I do make mistakes.

Homer

 

[C2]

Marconi, I believe the best way to make the reading is either by whole number or a 1/2 split only. i.e., it is either a 7 or 7.5, the latter of which is anywhere between 7 and 8.

If you really wanted to try and make it more accurate, you might be able to judge a 1/4 split, but I think that is pushing it a bit.

and then you would put a tolerance on that, +/- one digit of the smallest reading (1/2 or 1/4, depending on how you want to go.)

 

[Marconi]

Marconi's Wolf .64 GP restored.

Here is my Wolf .64 rebuilt and fixed. The match worked out just a bit above the center of the CB band at about 27.305 and showing a little reactance on my Autek VA1, using a 56' foot feed line.

Sorry my Antenna Work Sheet didn't turn out clear.
View attachment Wolf .64 Bandwidth Curve 022511.pdf



BTW Mack, this tune resulted from my measuring the 267" inches for the overall radiator length from the feed point bracket, not the bottom of the mount, or the center bolt between the Ground Plane Radials. If you use the 21" for the top like Eddie tells us in his manual, and measure back from the top wire of the top hat, you will see 267" at this bracket. My tune worked the first time, so the manual is very close using his dimensions.

I will post my Signal Report for the Wolf .64 shortly.

 

[HomerBB]

View Post
Your Marconi shared two of the reported contacts
Larry in Adams Flats, and Philip in New Caney with

9 and 6+ respectively. Both of those were better than the other two from those stations.
15.5 vs 14.5 for the other two.

Even the full randoms are interesting

S4 - 6.7
A99 - 6.8
7x - 6.7

What a deal.

I'm not sure I understand your last comment, can you explain the 15.5 vs 14.5 for the other two? Both of these guys have a Moonraker beam and Larry also has a Starduster. They both have different radios and both run power, so I never know what to expect from those two. Sometimes I go back and change signals from a previous contact just because I might see a better signal later on. I have to make a judgment call sometimes, and I do make mistakes.

Marconi

What I did was look for any of the random stations on the worksheets that all three of the antennas had in common.
Of the 6 to 9 stations reported for them, there were only two stations in common recorded for all three.
When I added together the two stations for each, the S4 and the A99 had a combined reading of 14.5, and the 7x had a combined reading of 15.5 for the two stations.
Had I divided by 2 for an average reading the S4 and the A99 would have been 7.25, and the 7x would have been 7.75. So I felt that the 7x was showing the best results to common stations.

 

[MrSuburban]

Yep Homer I think you're right, I saw about the same when I tested each antenna on both mounts with or without the other mouned.

I do a + or a - when the signal is a bit over or just a bit less than the whole number. When I add the numbers up to get the average, I add .5 to the + and subs tract .5 for the minus.

When I take a smaller sampling of contacts I tend to get different numbers and that depends on the mix (weighted values), this is why I tried to use the same guys, so as to help balance out the comparisons from test to test. The affects of conditions may also affect the individual test results from report to report along with the human factors, but in the end I lost this control when Bill died and several others just stopped talking regular every morning.

With my new random reporting I don't think I'll see this issue testing each antenna one at a time, like the rest of the world does it. BTW, I'm trying to video each test as much as time will allow. These videos tend to be too long for YouTube, so I won't have any proof, so were back to square one.

I know folks won't believe the new results either, but that is what I see and I'll post it anyway...I figure it is at least better than "Deadwood" telling us that his Imax destroyed his A99 to his buddy down the road when he was 13 and test his daddy's A99 in 1996 vs. his own Imax last week.

So far I'm seeing just what I've always seen, my antennas all perform far more similar that other operators find. Of course the shorter antennas should be a little bit behind the taller antennas, but well see. Here is my Marconi 7x report. I sure would like to be able to test using two-way reports, that might tell something that I don't see. I've always assumed that antennas are reciprocal so it should not make a big difference, but sometimes other guys I contact do see much more of a difference in signals than I do. That said, I wonder if real test ranges test their antennas both directions, or do they just assume a reciprocal response.

I guess if Mr.S would splain' that one to us, then maybe it would help explain why for some of these questions. I guess a lot matters as to what each individual believes the differences should be. Personally I estimate my differences of .1 - .3 Sunits might convert to a range of 1/4 db to maybe 2 db difference, and I figure with most of these antennas that might be the difference we might expect. However, when someone sees 2-3 Sunits difference, I believe what they say, but I wonder how or what that could be.

View attachment 4211

I cant explain what you are seeing since I am not there, But i can see you are testing to people with Beam antennas in at least 1/2 the tests. I assume you are still using SSB, and I can only assume you are using the S meter. Not much has changed in this thread but the date. If there was 1 db of signal change from one antenna to another that is how many S units? Longer antennas has more advantage further away on the horizon in close testing wont reveal this nor will s meter be able to discern the difference.
If anyone thinks the Antron will perform better than a sigma 4, then they must also beleive a coil antenna will outperform a full 1/4 wave.

 

[HomerBB]

I guess if Mr.S would splain' that one to us, then maybe it would help explain why for some of these questions.

This simple question enveloped in a request for help went unanswered. I guess Marconi just needs to get his learn on? The endless unwillingness to engage in fruitful discussion continues, same time, same station - WWDX. Why wouldn't someone express exasperation? I've certainly felt it.

If anyone thinks the Antron will perform better than a sigma 4, then they must also beleive a coil antenna will outperform a full 1/4 wave.

So far I've only read where Marconi has made disclaimers for his results, ie. only reporting I what see, do not have the answers for why my results are like they are, others are getting different results, I tend to believe what others are reporting, etc.

Whether the claim is made on any of Marconi's threads for the superiority of the A99 over a Sigma4 is not even debatable. He's certainly made so such claim. In fact, in every case of comparing antennas he has worked really hard to implement the suggestions for testing that have been given to him. His readings are what they are without embellishment, and the honesty of the results are disclosed in the reports by full disclosure of antenna types at both ends, and distances between them.
He has no willingly cooperative counterparts in the tests, so they are receive only, and the other stations appear to prefer SSB comms, so he has utilized those in the tests, too.
Nothing sinister in his reporting, and all fully disclosed. Deciphering the data to glean anything useful has been an open invitation to everyone who wants to step in.

I see no reason in all of this for mocking these attempts to sort through his antenna performances to seek a consistent advantage of any one over the other at his QTH, and/or to find explanations for why he is seeing the close results that he is between antennas.

To that end, I think he has done well. Anyone want to add anything constructive, or is the wolf pack just on the hunt, again?

 

[Marconi]

Here are my Signal Reports for my Wolf .64, good or bad - right or wrong. I hope the videos simply verify only what I see. This is not claiming to be the last word in testing however, it is what it is.

YouTube - Marconi testing his Wolf .64 collinear ground plane video #1

YouTube - Marconi testing his Wolf .64 collinear ground plane video #2

YouTube - Marconi testing his Wolf .64 collinear ground plane video #3


View attachment Wolf .64 Signal Report 022611.pdf

View attachment Wolf .64 Bandwidth Curve 022511.pdf

 

[Shockwave]

I'm not taking any sides on this one. I see Marconi has invested a good deal of time in his recent tests. While I would do some things differently, I don't see any benefit in picking on him. It appears his only motivation was to share his finding with us the best he could.

Having said that, I must admit I'm having trouble making any sense of the results. For all practical purposes we are seeing an antenna that has one of the lowest gains possible (unity gain half wave A99) beating one of the highest gains verticals. I sure can't replicate that.