That would be me, I think. The thread you are looking for is here:
https://forum.ausrocketry.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=5661
As I said in the thread, it is based on the unit I tested only, with a sample size of n=1.
If I get time I should throw the comb generator in the EMC chamber and do comparative scans with and without the NC as a hat. That will check all frequencies in one scan. I think the results will be remarkably similar, but the experiment needs to be done to confirm. Should be able to get to that sometime by mid-2018 if I am lucky
Thanks, The thing I was impressed with was your rather impressive and likely accurate setup. Yes N=1 here but if one is going to an extreme, might be a better
idea to use a more powerful (ie 100mW) tracker or with a nosecone tracker have an aft facing antenna into a radiolucent upper bay.
Of course, if one does a clear air ground test with a black nosecone mounted tracker and is satisfied with the range, that is reassuring they will have a good
prospect of tracking. I tell you, it's a very sick feeling if one launches a very pricey setup to sight unseen territory and no positions are received due to
a suboptimal setup. I don't want to repeat my experience of 10 years ago and just lucked out the rocket was seen under main at the limits of vision and
was recovered in an open field. The temperature concerns Greg reports above might be obviated somewhat by taking the trouble of painting the
cone with a brighter, non-metallic paint. Kurt