From: W9UCW@aol.com
Date sent: Sun, 11 May 2003 01:23:27 EDT
To: topband@contesting.com
Copies to: les@highnoonfilm.com
Subject: Topband: Re: 160 Meters Mobile Antennas
> Hi Les & Others,
(snip)
> On the "Q" question, the
> comparison was between similarly laid out center/top loaded antennas. One
> had a big open wound, heavy wire, spaced turn coil with a 8" diameter and a
> 1:1 length/diameter ratio. The other had a 1" diameter close wound coil on a
> PVC form using #20 wire. The length/diameter ratio was over 20:1. It was
> covered with shrink tubing.
>
> The measured worst case scenario (of any HF band) was on 160. The difference
> was .3db. That's 3 tenths. We were all shocked and immediately agreed that
> the test had to be flawed...even those of us that thought the LO-Q coil was a
> better deal. It just couldn't be that close.
>
> That test was modified and tried over and over. I know of 5 more run between
> 1972 and 1992....all with the same results.
(snip)
> 73's Barry, W9UCW
This is most amusing, as the second coil being described sounds
like it should be more lossy, and it sounds somewhat like one of
those often-maligned Hustler resonators. The outer layer of
heat-shrink tubing is a dead giveaway. :o)
Truly amazing if the difference was only 0.3dB. I would not have
expected that result. :o) 73, David K3KY
>
|