[Top] [All Lists]

[TowerTalk] Re: Non-traditional antenna designs

To: <>
Subject: [TowerTalk] Re: Non-traditional antenna designs
From: (Tom Rauch)
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 15:29:58 -0500
>     I'm a huge skeptic of the performance of 'new', non-traditional
>     antenna 
> designs. I went to the Hex website and founds loads of anecodotal
> information and lots of 'smoke and mirrors' about how it's angles have
> to do with "reflected path performance" and other hyperbole. Also,
> there's lots of technical mumbo jumbo (I'm not an antenna engineer or
> expert so I can't comment authoritatively about the calcs and
> formulas) about the antenna as well as comments about 'tests' that
> were conducted with no other info available. 
>     In the Hex website was a copy of a CQ magazine review by Lew "I
>     never met 
> an antenna I didn't like" McCoy. Some more interesting anecdotal
> information. 
>     I'm also skeptical about the RAI Beam and others. Let me say that
>     I'm 
> sure that these antennas 'radiate.' Whether they live up to their
> claims is the question. N6BT had some fun using a lightbulb as an HF
> antenna so it also radiated. In the case of our antenna testing, we
> found that Force 12 was the only manufacturer whose published antenna
> specs corroborated our findings. 

I certainly agree with almost everything you say. I'd never trust a 
review from CQ Magazine, no matter who the author is, because 
CQ has no technical editing or safeguards.    

Do you think that N6BT's QST article was technically accurate 
Steve, specifically where he claimed in a chart tribanders have 
something like negative 10dB gain and described the ionosphere 
as offering non-linear response to transmitter ERP?
73, Tom W8JI 

Where do you get ICE bandpass filters & beverage matching boxes?  The
same place that pays for the hosting of this list:  The eHam Store.
Order online at

FAQ on WWW:     
Administrative requests:

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>