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
--