Owen Duffy wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 22:15:00 -0500, Mike Coslo
wrote:


Some times the vertical works better, and sometimes the horizontal
works better. I'm having a heck of a time correlating exactly *why and

Mike, we need a clear definition of the meaning of "works" in your
data gathering and analysis.


Yeah! I'm trying to come up with a good test protocol that will allow
me to define "work".

So far, I can note that some signals drop into the noise and become
unreadable, while are readable on the other at the same time. That seems
a bit simplistic though.

My main problem is the variable signal levels., and the also variable
noise levels. Turns out that the antenna that was noisier on one band is
quieter on another, and vice versa.

A fellow could come to the conclusion that "this ain't exactly easy". HA!

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:

Yeah! I'm trying to come up with a good test protocol that will
allow me to define "work".

So far, I can note that some signals drop into the noise and become
unreadable, while are readable on the other at the same time. That seems
a bit simplistic though.

My main problem is the variable signal levels., and the also
variable noise levels. Turns out that the antenna that was noisier on
one band is quieter on another, and vice versa.

A fellow could come to the conclusion that "this ain't exactly
easy". HA!

It isn't.

The best antenna for transmitting is the one which produces the loudest
signal at the other station. The best antenna for receiving is the one
which produces the best signal/noise ratio at your station. The two are
often different, because they're determined by different antenna
characteristics. So for starters, you can have two "best" antennas for
each station you want to contact, and that "best" will vary with the
skip elevation angle, local noise level, and directions and angles the
noise is coming from.

Have fun!

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:32:05 -0800, Roy Lewallen
wrote:


A fellow could come to the conclusion that "this ain't exactly
easy". HA!

It isn't.

The best antenna for transmitting is the one which produces the loudest
signal at the other station. The best antenna for receiving is the one
which produces the best signal/noise ratio at your station. The two are
often different, because they're determined by different antenna
characteristics. So for starters, you can have two "best" antennas for
each station you want to contact, and that "best" will vary with the
skip elevation angle, local noise level, and directions and angles the
noise is coming from.


Just was I was thinking when I prompted the "works" definition.

I should not be surprised if many observations indicate the better
antenna for tx is different from the better antenna for rx. I am not
trying to question reciprocity, but there are several factors, ambient
noise at the rx site probably being the most significant.

Key thing is, works is not adequately defined by making one or a few
DX QSOs!.

Mike, perhaps you need to formalise your "works" criteria with your
current experience, identifying what you need to record, before making
too many more observations.

I agree with Roy, for each antenna, rx main figure of merit S/N
(crudely S units between ambient noise and signal), and on tx, the
other stations observed S meter reading. (Whole log of issues there...
but a rough start supported by the current RST reporting scheme.)

Owen
--