> We were unlikely collaborators, Chuck and I, because
most of the time I
> would lash-up stuff in the trees and try them out over a
weekend. But
> whenever Chuck built something, it was more like real
product development
> than breadboarding. Everything he built looked like it
was completely ready
> for market and could be used in deep space or in a battle
situation. So
> when it came to antenna collaboration, I usually stuck to
the modeling on
> the VAX while Chuck cranked out works of engineering art.
I am sure he is
> still doing that kind of stuff.
I'm much more a person who wants things to work as best as
possible and not suck up all my time and energy rather than
exert myself to make things look professional. This serves
my goals quite well.
For example on 160 meters I've been running a Globe Scout
65A barefoot at 50 watts or so output, and busting pileups
of high power stations. I do the same thing in my mobile on
other bands. It isn't that my antennas work better than
predicted or better than theoretically possible, it's just
that many antennas work significantly worse than users think
even though they are quite happy. They might not be so happy
knowing a 50 watt 1950's transmitter got through first, but
being happy is what is important rather than pecking order.
If I wanted to be loud on 40, I'd just use a high dipole. On
80 or 160, I'd use a good vertical array for DX.
73 Tom
_______________________________________________
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
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|