FWIW, I have not heard or seen K2AV making unreasonable "claims" of
performance.
Neither have I, nor have I ever inferred he did.
My point, which was addressed to Steve, was pretty basic stuff. I don't
understand how it gets changed so much.
My point was, when we change **everything** in a system, including where the
main vertical element is located in a very cluttered environment, and
especially when we have a station that historically has reported over many
years having a problem getting any vertical to work as well as a horizontal
antenna, it is a very large leap to single out a ground system change as
making a few days of operating performance feel good.
There isn't any reason to extrapolate things so simple and basic into
something no one said.
I think it is appropriate and necessary to mention the following general
facts:
1.) When multiple things are changed in a randomly cluttered environment, it
is impossible to single out a single factor
2.) When a system or location has a history of being sensitive to antenna
styles, it is probably not the most reliable performance evaluation site
3.) A few days or weeks of contacts don't mean much on any band, let alone
160. We all probably know this :-)
No one should be offended by anyone's efforts to keep technical discussions
grounded in reality, and it certainly should not be changed to something
that was never said or implied.
73 Tom
_______________________________________________
UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
|