I'm not offended at all. This is a good discussion. I do think that if my results were reversed, not one person would mention variables. They would simply say they told me so. I think that being I am going against the grain to popular thought, I will hear every reason as to why my test is bogus. I could retest 100 times and probably still have the same responses. Its ok though. This is a subject that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of life. It just kept my son and I occupied on a day that I didn't have work.
I would have, simply because the changes referred to are to great and would have thrown red flags for me either way.
Now you are looking at the increase in the S meter all wrong and your statement is true yet deceiving.
How is it deceiving? To change nothing but the power output it takes four time the power difference to change 1 s-unit. That is a 6db gain over the lower power. The next s-unit is the same way. Each s-unit requires four times the power of the previous s-unit. So what a 2 s-unit increase is saying is the new antenna is receiving 12 db gain over the lower power rating, which is a multiplier of 16 times. That is how your s-meter is supposed to work, they are notoriously unreliable. In essence you are saying that the two antennas together over the single antenna are either transmitting or receiving 16 times the effective power in the directions in question, and in your case this happened in multiple directions. There is no power multiplication happening as the two antennas have to share the same source. We are talking exponential gains here. Is it possible that in your case the antennas transmit and receive better? Yes. 2 s-units worth? Not without also adding an amplifier.
What if the dbi gain of the two antennas gave a final transmission strenth of 16W, but with the one antenna it adversely had a dbi loss giving a final TX of 1W?
What happens with antenna systems that have a gain over another antenna system is not the overall power output but a manipulation on where that power is being sent. The DBi scale is based on the theoretical isotropic radiator, which transmits equally up, down, left, right, front, back and everything in between all at the same time from a single point in space. As you lengthen the antenna its radiation patter changes, less of the given power input goes up and down and is redirected out to the horizon. This happens up into the low 20' range (depending on how wide the antenna is). There is not more power being transmitted, it is simply being focused in fewer directions.
Adding a second antenna to an existing setup does not change how much effective power is pointing at the horizon, it does change where the power is pointing. In the case of a cohpased system that additional power is pointing on a line that runs between the antennas running to the front and the back. This comes at a sacrifice of the power being radiated to the sides (90 degrees either way from the line mentioned before). If more power is being sent in one direction it has to come from another direction.
There is 2 S units without wild output numbers like 64W vs 4W. CBRADIOMAGAZINE did a review of a Maco 5/8 wave antenna and got a 2 S unit gain over an Imax.
Comparing a comparison with mobile antennas to a comparison of base antennas is the same as comparing apples to oranges. The overall gain differences of the two sets of antennas being put forth is significant. Mobile antennas have very little DBi gain, the much longer base antennas have much more. With the base antennas they are comparing two very different antennas with very different properties and design specifications. In your case you are adding an antenna to an existing setup, this is also apples to oranges.
So it isn't uncommon at all to see increases in output from one antenna system to another. You can look at it however you want. You can say it is because unknown variables.
The problem with that is the theory in question that your numbers are not even close to is well tested and well documented. Unknown variables, while they will certainly have an effect, will not have that much of an effect.
Even if such an an unknown variable would have that much of an effect, the variable is unknown, and moving the vehicle, sometimes even a 20 or 30 feet could potentially reverse all of your finding.
But we live on millions of pounds of soil, rock, metal, etc. We spin at some 12,000 miles an hour while rotating, along with 7 other planets, around a giant fireball. Our whole universe is an endless series of variables. And those variables all gave me stronger transmitt with two antennas over using one.
But 2 s-units difference, an effective receive change in the receiving radio of 16 times over the lower received signal? I'm sorry, not that much. Those numbers are to great.
How much stronger, in S units, is irrelevant to my point. My point is that it is just stronger. NEVER did the single antenna put a higher number on the receiving radio's meter. Not once.
So your giving up on your numbers with this statement and just saying it transmits stronger now? Well, this is a free country and you are allowed to believe what you want to believe.
Man I wish we were closer, I would love to do a similar test on your vehicle with a field strength meter.
The DB
