> I am thinking of building a double bazooka antenna
> for 160.
> I am wondering what effect if any using RG-59
> rather than RG-58 would have.
> I am on a lot of major construction sites that use RG-59
> so I can scoop 250 to 300 feet for free.
Wow, another lightning topic!
Seriously, the Bazooka is VERY bad theory that gained
mainstream acceptance through word-of-mouth and misguided
advertisements by people marketing them. My first exposure
to them was in the 70's, when a fellow working for me
started selling them at Hamfests. He brought one in to work,
we measured it, and we concluded it did nothing at all. He
continued to sell them since people continued to buy them.
Instead of saying they worked, he had flyers of the article
saying they worked (the claim was the military used them).
Many years later someone on this, or some other reflector,
was kind enough to give me an IAC Bazooka. I measured it.
It had no more bandwidth than a dipole made from thick wire.
It required a balun just the same as any other dipole.
It was no quieter.
It was, as far as I could tell, just a little bit less
If you look at Maxwell's "Reflections" or the ARRL Antenna
Handbook you will find explanations why they don't do what
is claimed. As a matter of fact, the data I took agreed
within a few percent of the mathematical calculations of the
ARRL Antenna Handbook. I thought that was a pretty good
indication they did a correct analysis.
The bottom line is if you don't mind having a heavy antenna
that really doesn't work any better than a regular dipole,
use the coax. You can either connect it like a Bazooka or
just like a chunk of wire, and it will work the same. With
that in mind, it doesn't matter at all if you use 50 ohm or
75 ohm coax. It will "work" the same either way.
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless Weather
Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any questions
and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
TowerTalk mailing list