Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"Or perhaps it didn`t matter what the uncertainty was."

Examination of the comparative feild strength data left no doubt that
the antenna was working as expected. This was the first of several
similar antennas to be constructed. Before proceeding we needed
verification of the design and construction.. It worked and we built
more.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

Richard,
You state that you used a dipole to compare with, which was at the same
height !.
Which antenna was altered so that the elevation angle of maximum gain
was the same for both antennas.such that max gain measurements
were truly comparable?
Where was the height of the "curtain" measured or referred to
so that "same height" could be justified ?
( You also did say it was for SW use which is certainly different
to ground wave use)
Presumably, the comparison was for the same type of polarization
and ignored differences created by the side addition of other
types of polarization.
Without further information the "Facts" could be seen as
correct to plus or minus 100 percent measurement error!
An expert in the field of measurements such as Richard could have a field
day
disecting the test mode as discussed by you and certainly does not reflect
the
professional antenna analysis aproach which Reg is seeking., which, most
certainly,
would take into account the elevation angle at which maximum gain occurs
as well as many other things

Art




"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...
Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"Or perhaps it didn`t matter what the uncertainty was."

Examination of the comparative feild strength data left no doubt that
the antenna was working as expected. This was the first of several
similar antennas to be constructed. Before proceeding we needed
verification of the design and construction.. It worked and we built
more.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI

" wrote in message
news:u9_ae.18115$NU4.14900@attbi_s22...
Richard,
You state that you used a dipole to compare with, which was at the same
height !.
Which antenna was altered so that the elevation angle of maximum gain
was the same for both antennas.such that max gain measurements
were truly comparable?
Where was the height of the "curtain" measured or referred to
so that "same height" could be justified ?
( You also did say it was for SW use which is certainly different
to ground wave use)
Presumably, the comparison was for the same type of polarization
and ignored differences created by the side addition of other
types of polarization.
Without further information the "Facts" could be seen as
correct to plus or minus 100 percent measurement error!



And that sums up most antenna testing rather well!

--
Ed
WB6WSN
El Cajon, CA USA