SW, I'll check my video library. I think I did a video while I was testing the Sigma4 and the A99. Problem is these vids may be longer than Youtube allows (10 min), so I may not be able to post them.
I think I proved to myself, at least, that my testing side by side didn't seem to suggest any detectable reactions between the antenna signals that I receive here, but in hopes to give you guys a bit more to look at...I stopped that. Now I'm testing one at a time, but it's like watching paint dry on a ugly pink picket fence, and my Signal Reports are still "what you see is what I see," baring my errors in reading signals of course.
I think my older signal reports in my album also show something similar regarding the effectiveness of my A99, which is nothing special...it just dates back to the early 90's with the original owner who sold it to me for $5.00 saying it was broke. It only had water in it, because he caulked the feed point up when he installed it about 2-3 years earlier. His loss my gain, but I took a chance it was really broken too. I've reconditioned it many times since then including reinforcing the hub connections, which tend to work loose over time.
I don't have the detection equipment you might use, but do you see my reports as totally off the wall and valueless, like other's have suggested? I don't know at this point what I could do. The way I see it, I don't for a minute think "anyone" else here, that tells us he has tested, is doing much different and their reports are just words.
I wish I could explain the A99 issue, but I can't. I'm just as surprised, even though this is not the first time I've see similar results. When I realize this showed up on my Signal Reports several years ago, I immediately emailed Bob85 and told him what I noticed. He too, was not impressed and dismissed the idea. If it had been**** me on the receiving end of something different than I had previously experienced, I would be asking myself some questions, and then trying to figure out why or how I could duplicate such results, even while I understand the hesitance in considering such wild ideas.
I also own a Wolf 50_11m, a 1/2 wave vertical that looks very much like an old Ringo antenna. I never could get that thing to tune with a low SWR, with or without radials attached. Even so, that antenna proved in similar testing, side-by-side to make a very nice local RX signal as well. I don't have any records on it, because I was thinking that the bad tune would affect the performance badly. It proved me wrong on many comparison test working in the range of 1.7:1 and higher, but again...it never failed to make a better signal no matter what was stacked up beside it.
I've talked about the Wolf 50_1m before, but I never had much confidence in my thinking to make an issue of it until now, even still I cannot explain why. The only thing I told Eddie Chicconi about my experience with it, was that most would not get excited with any antenna that they attempted to tune close to the ground, and on raising as little as 3' feet additional...they would see a considerable change in the match that would not get better on raising up higher. He told me it was due to the matching coil size and that he would send me another, but that never happened. One of the bolts on the antenna mounting bracket where this coil attachés is also defective by design and strips the two or three threads provided. I suggested that part should at the very least have a nice think nut welded over that hole in order to provide the screw depth necessary to hold the bolt attaching the tuning coil to the base mount. Nothing was ever done about that either, so to this day that $100 antenna remains broke and out of service.
I tell this story to help folks understand that Marconi has been saying much the same thing for years and that prior to the video's all I could do is post words. But even now with the videos, there is still doubt and a gillion reasons why what is seen cannot be true else the viewer has to change his mind. I find that to be a bit closed minded to say the least.
