[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TowerTalk] . Re: 2006 Top Ten Chutzpah Awards

To: "'Towertalk'" <>
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] . Re: 2006 Top Ten Chutzpah Awards
From: "Gary Schafer" <>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 12:20:07 -0500
List-post: <>
I think most have missed the point of the original poster on "antenna size".
I believe what he was referring to when he said "a small antenna radiates
just as well as a large antenna" was in reference to a dipole full length
verses a very short dipole. He said that as long as you can get power to it
the short antenna will radiate just about as well as the long antenna.

I concur with that also. The problem with a short antenna is getting power
to it as its impedance is very low and matching network losses run high. But
the bottom line is that if you have a 10 foot long antenna and a 120 foot
long antenna, both on 80 meters, if you can get 100 watts into each there
will be very little difference in radiation from either. Unfortunately this
is very difficult to accomplish.

Gary  K4FMX

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:towertalk-
>] On Behalf Of Tom Osborne
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 11:27 PM
> To: Towertalk
> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] . Re: 2006 Top Ten Chutzpah Awards
> >At 11:11 AM 8/23/2006, Keith Dutson wrote:
>  >It is simply not true that a larger antenna transmits better than a
>  >smaller one.
> How true!  I had a 3 element TH-3 up for a while.  I never did care for
> how
> it worked so I took it down and made a 2 element 20 meter monobander
> (smaller antenna) out of it, which worked much better than the TH-3
> (bigger
> antenna) :^)  73
> Tom W7WHY
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list


TowerTalk mailing list

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