Hi Fred,
I can't argue religion.
> be lithographed, but his present 10 meter quad is pretty damn small and
> appears to work very well. I saw his logbook at a party at his house last
> Sunday.
Logbooks can't prove or disprove a ten dB difference in efficiency let
alone a fraction of a dB, especially on ten meters where the world can be
worked with a fraction of a watt ERP. Any comparison requires an A-B test
against a well known and accurate reference.
If you look at my logbooks, you'll find contacts on 160 meters with VK, ZL,
and dozens of Europeans from my *mobile*. Scale my eight foot tall 160
mobile antenna to ten meters 8/16= 1/2 foot tall. Scale the ground losses,
and propagation losses from 160 to ten meters. My 160 meter mobile antenna
is less than one percent efficient, and it works DX on 160. Even with no
change in efficiency, I would work much more DX on ten.
> Again, I fully concur that these are the right questions to ask, and I
> know that Chip will, in due course, be trying to answer them.
That will be the moment of truth. Until facts are presented, it's just
hyperbole. Look at the quad, and it's claimed two dB of advantage. When
valid tests were made, all claims (that were not supported by physics)
evaporated.
73 Tom
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|