After all manner of diagnostic tests with

None of your statements can be supported without evidence. (Anecdote isn’t evidence).

Science IS evidence.

Arguments about interpretation take up most of the page, but without “evidence” being available to all, there is nothing to discuss.

“My tech can make a 29 outperform ANY Amateur Radio extant”.

That’s as valid a statement as you made above as there is no supporting evidence.

Now, I don’t see any reason to push it past this. You say it’s good, that’s okay by me. And that’s as far as it goes.

 

Yeah and the guy who does the calibration of my stuff also has them, but when we are working with dummy loads at one or another frequency, it doesn't matter because you don't be precise because as I said before, we are not talking about critical communication systems.

 

Precisely my point. Not being precise about maintaining the integrity of the wave not just at 1k but everywhere else makes it impossible to calculate a watt or maximize efficiency.. To maximize efficiency, all we can do is take precise measurements to make precise adjustments. Imagine picking up 1/10th of a db in 40 different areas. Every little bit adds up and collectively can result in huge performance gains.

 

Yeah, well my radio will hit the ground faster from the top of my tower because its heavier.

 

For most work, the standard 5% tolerance is fine, it is those who think they need to squeeze everything out of the signal that seems to think it isn't fine.

 

Truer words have never been spoken.
Since we're not going to get more power out of our radios all we can do is clean up the power that we do have and try to maximize its efficiency. Mobile stations need all the help they can get. It's much less critical in a base application.