>>that while the trap losses with this design are modeled to be under .04 db
>>on 10, 17 and 40 meters, they hit 1.66 db on 80, with a trap Q of 171. The
>>author attributes this to the antenna's input resistance being "reduced" to
>>51.8 ohms, and then calls the 1.66 db (for 2 traps) "insignificant." Huh?
>Maybe this is why some feel that a "few db" loss is insignificant:
>Let's say we're running 1500 watts and we are S9. We're (hypothetically)
>using RG174 and 36 barrel connectors in our feedline. Let's say our total
>loss is 18 db!! Well if an "S" unit is 6db, then we're still being received
>S6!! Sure, we're only putting 23.4 watts into the antenna, but we're workin'
This example is often used to diminish the importance of controlling losses,
but it really misses the mark.
Only a small number of the important DX contacts I've ever made happened at
S9. I can remember my first T33 pulling me out at S1.
In contests, after working the big guns, most of the weak EU and AS stations
come bounding in at S3, S1, and even S0.
So the story should go like this:
Let's say we're running 1500 watts and we are S1. We're (hypothetically)
using RG174 and 36 barrel connectors in our feedline. Let's say our total
loss is 18 db!! Well if an "S" unit is 6db, then we're NOT BEING HEARD.
In fact, you'll probably never know because you wouldn't hear the other guy
anyway. You'll probably just say, "Another spot I can't work!"
Rob Hummel (WS1A) <firstname.lastname@example.org>