Take a look at L.B.Cebik's website. He has a huge amount of information on
antennas and modeling.
Radials are covered including graphs of number of radials vs. performance in
one of his articles on the website http://www.cebik.com/gp/gr.html .
Insulated radials? check out http://www.cebik.com/gp/ir.html .
He also has many books he has authored on antennas and ham radio available.
I have no connection with him other than being very impressed the tremendous
amount of information on his site and a couple of his books now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Billy Cox" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Ed" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Antennaware] radials
> To echo what Ed is saying ... check the QST review out
> and if I recall, they mention how POOR the GAP performs
> on the lowest band ... CQ "reviews" typically read as a
> loose press release with very few objective numbers. Do
> they 'work'? Yes ... but ...
> Some sources that I suggest to buffet the false "hamlore":
> Anything by W8JI ... www.w8ji.com is a good site to start.
> Anything by ON4UN ... his DXing/Low Bands books are great
> Anything by N7CL ... check TowerTalk archives for posts
> Most ARRL Antenna books and texts ...
> Bottom line with verticals? There simpy is NO 'free lunch'.
> 73 de Billy, AA4NU
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Ed <email@example.com>
> >> CQ tested the Challenger and established that on 20m,
> for example, its gain was approximately 6 to 8dB.
> >-------------So, their claim is it has the gain of a good 4 element
> >or 5 element yagi?
> >C'mon guys. You'll be far better off if you never believe what a
> >manufacturer says. Unless of course, they were comparing it to a
> >small bedspring.
> Antennaware mailing list
Antennaware mailing list