On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:04:24 GMT, "Jimmy"
wrote:
Gain and efficecey have nothing to do with each other

Hi Jimmy,

In the classic sense, this is very true.

However, when we look at gain integrated over all dimensions, we
arrive at the concept of the isotropic reference. As a basis of
comparison (skip the sophistry of there being no such physical device)
this too reveals how gain and efficiency can be compared.

In other words, with gain you can play the numbers to claim efficiency
by sweeping the bad news under the carpet if you simply ignore the
integration factor. A prime example is the recent glowing reports of
the cfa. The "inventor" claims that his "FCC" tests reveal a gain of
his antenna over the standard monopole, through substitution with an
actual broadcast band, licensed transmitter.

Well, perhaps in the direction of the nearby tower it was supposed to
replace. When you look in every other direction, and step well away
from the source (say, like were the listeners actually live and
listen); then it is a different game altogether. Only 20 miles out
and you find the cfa 30dB down into the mud compared to FCC standard
charts (I won't go deeply into the fact that the comparison BC station
had a ****-poor antenna itself 10dB down from those same charts).

True, no one did a helicopter flyover to vindicate the cfa's
redemption of superb cloud warming capabilities, but that was not
where the listening audience lives. Further, given that the cfa's
poor performance conformed to modeling along the testing scenario, it
was hardly an indictment of the models that they did not reveal the
glow in the sky.

So, when you see claims based against gain tied to arguments of
efficiency (apply any special terminology you wish) ask the hard
questions and observe the answers. Do they respond with technical
specifications that answer the issue, or are they laden with conflict
and personality?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC