Big Don wrote:
>If all antenna gain "truth" were known, and standards properly set, so
>that hardcore accurate gains could be correctly advertised, the winning
>(for example) tribander would advertise and the losers would all clam up.
>That would cost the ARRL lots of money in lost antenna ads.
>My guess is there is no incentive for the ARRL to clear up the confusion.
>Better to leave the situation as murky as possible so the manufacturers
>can all attempt to out-hype each other with expensive ads...
This is a VERY good point you bring up. Something that I have thought about
for some time. Makes a guy really wonder if the ARRL really dissallowed the
antenna gain figures to be published for the benefit of the ham community,
or simply to make the waters purposlely murky. A hype war breeds heavy
advertising. There is one likely result however;
In reality, there will be some real lemon antennas, but on the whole, I
think that by now, everyone knows the tried and true performers. Even
testing the antennas under controlled environment will reveal results that
are personally subjective for importance.
Let's face it, antenna A may beat out antenna B in gain, but B beats A in
F/B. , Then antenna C could be slightly less gain than all, but provide
broader SWR curves etc.
There is really no ONE figure that is important to everyone the same. The
fact that there are several properties of antennas, ie. physical size,
weight, gain bandwidth, F/B, forward gain, etc still leaves us with results
that are subjective for importance to the user.
So will the TH7 be better than a KT34XA? Hmmmm....who knows, but at the
very least we will see who the 'smoke and mirrors' advertisers really are.
Food for Thought,
73 de Shawn
Suggested Serving, Antennas not included.
|* ANTENNA FARMS *|
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com