wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...

Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"Naturally, laboratories can differ one from another."

A lab may put its stamp of approval on your instrument, but your best
assurance may be measurement of known values. The temperature of
ice-water or the voltage of new dry cells, for example You usually can
try several dry cells for confirmation or averaging.

In antennas, one strategy for successful gain determination is
comparison with an antenna of known gain.


Whow, thats a good idea, write it up for QST. They are looking for pearls of
wisdom that can be useful for ham radio operators so that we may maintain our
perceived leadership of the art of antennas......'Compare with a antenna of known
gain'...... Revolutionary!
Now why hasn't any Guru on this group thought of this before today?

rest snipped

Well Art, as much as people may desire some sort of definitive "this
antenna performs exactly as....." statements, it would seem that they
aren't going to get them.

Which is to say that Richard's statement IS a pearl of wisdom, despite
being unsatisfactory in some peoples view.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
wrote:
"Richard Harrison" wrote in message
...

Reg, G4FGQ wrote:
"Naturally, laboratories can differ one from another."

A lab may put its stamp of approval on your instrument, but your best
assurance may be measurement of known values. The temperature of
ice-water or the voltage of new dry cells, for example You usually can
try several dry cells for confirmation or averaging.

In antennas, one strategy for successful gain determination is
comparison with an antenna of known gain.


Whow, thats a good idea, write it up for QST. They are looking for pearls
of wisdom that can be useful for ham radio operators so that we may
maintain our perceived leadership of the art of antennas......'Compare
with a antenna of known gain'...... Revolutionary!
Now why hasn't any Guru on this group thought of this before today?

rest snipped

Well Art, as much as people may desire some sort of definitive "this
antenna performs exactly as....." statements, it would seem that they
aren't going to get them.

Which is to say that Richard's statement IS a pearl of wisdom, despite
being unsatisfactory in some peoples view.

Mike,
Do you really believe that Reg is really unaware that "comparing
with a dipole" can be used by some (as long as all parameters are stated
specific and to the point) ? If Richard really thought that comparing to a
dipole was unique
Richard surely should have added more data. Thus the reason that Richard
brought forth
this item of wisdom forward in answer to Reg,s initial post, which was quite
clear,
is unfathomable without a "grin" additive to declare his true intent was not
to be facitious.
Especially since it did not add details which pertained to professional
antenna.
measurement methods as requested by Reg which is part and parcel of
ascertaining
degree of error that was specifically referred to.
As an aside it would appear that statements above made by Richard have been
atributed to Reg which certainly muddies the waters to which you refer to.
Regards
Art
..
Regards
Art


- Mike KB3EIA -

Art Unwin wrote:
"If Richard really thpoght that comparing to a dipole was unique."

Not at all. I was relating an experience which I hoped was accurate and
useful.

Kraus describes the "comparison method" on page 857 of his 3rd edition
of "Antennas". I used the reverse of his example, switching transmitting
antennas instead of receiving antennas.

Kraus` volume goes into many details of antenna testing.

Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI